Defendant 1 and two others

Su-res et al. and one other

Attorneys Noh Byung-hun et al.

Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 5 years and 3 years, respectively.

However, with respect to the defendant 3, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Attachment 3] An order of preservation for confiscation, set forth in [Attachment 3] No. 2010, 4451, shall be forfeited from Defendant 3.

A penalty of KRW 200 million from Defendant 2 shall be additionally collected.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1 and 2 were acquitted on April 30, 2004 on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) and on September 2010 on Defendant 1.

[Attachment]

【2010Gohap1500】

Defendant 1 is an actual inspection of Nonindicted Co. 8 [former Nonindicted Co. 16 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 8 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 16”), Nonindicted Co. 3 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 3”), Nonindicted Co. 25 [former Nonindicted Co. 24, hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 25 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 24”)], Nonindicted Co. 1 [former Nonindicted Co. 15 (hereinafter “former Nonindicted Co. 15”)], Nonindicted Co. 48 [former Non-Indicted Co. 49 and hereinafter “former Non-Indicted 49”)”)], Nonindicted Co. 9 [former Non-Indicted Co. 18 (hereinafter “Non-Indicted Co. 18”)]; hereinafter “Non-Indicted Co. 9”) to exercise overall control over the management of ○○ Group’s funds, business management, etc. as the president of the ○ Group.

1. Defendant 1’s embezzlement of KRW 8.5 billion for Nonindicted Co. 3’s corporate funds

A. On August 24, 2005, the embezzlement of KRW 1.5 billion for Nonindicted Co. 3’s corporate funds

On May 2005, Defendant 1 decided to take over Nonindicted Company 3 from Nonindicted 6, entered into a public bath business with the total acquisition price of KRW 12.6 billion, and obtained the management right by transfer. On December 19, 2005, Nonindicted 47, the wife and the mother of the Defendant, became the representative director of Nonindicted Company 3. However, under the circumstances where only some of the acquisition price is paid and the remainder is not set up, Defendant 1, in collusion with Nonindicted 47, paid the acquisition price with the corporate fund of Nonindicted Company 3.

On August 24, 2005, Defendant 1 accounted for the transfer of KRW 1.5 billion of the funds of Nonindicted Co. 3 to Nonindicted Co. 5 on the pretext of advance payment on the part of the private business chain operated by Nonindicted Co. 4, a type of sale, to Nonindicted Co. 5 for the installation of facilities in Nonindicted Co. 3, and immediately remitted the said funds to the account in the name of Defendant 1, Nonindicted Co. 6’s former owner of Nonindicted Co. 3, Nonindicted Co. 26, to the account in the name of Defendant 1.

As a result, Defendant 1, in collusion with Nonindicted 47, embezzled KRW 1.5 billion, which was in custody for the victim Nonindicted 3 Company, for personal purposes at will, in collusion with the representative director.

B. On March 30, 2006, embezzlement of KRW 7 billion for Nonindicted Co. 3’s corporate funds

On March 29, 2006, Nonindicted Co. 3 provided real estate and facilities owned by Nonindicted Co. 3 as collateral and borrowed KRW 8 billion from Nonindicted Co. 2.

Defendant 1, on March 30, 2006, remitted the above 8 billion won out of the above 8 billion won to Nonindicted 7’s account on the following day, as a loan, on March 30, 2006, and transferred the 1.5 billion won out of the above 2.9 billion won to Nonindicted 6’s account, and the 1.4 billion won out of the above 8 billion won borrowed from Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank to Nonindicted 3’s account as a loan for acquisition of Nonindicted 3. On the same day, he remitted the 3.5 billion won out of the above 4.1 billion won out of the above 4.1 billion won to Defendant 1’s account on April 3, 2006, for the same day, remitted the 3.35 billion won out of the above 4.1 billion won to Nonindicted 26’s account, 7.48 billion won out of the above 4.6 billion won for the purpose of acquiring Nonindicted 3’s account.

Accordingly, Defendant 1, in collusion with the representative director Nonindicted 47, embezzled KRW 7 billion, which was in the course of business custody for the victim Nonindicted 3 Company, for personal purposes at will.

2. Defendant 1’s embezzlement of KRW 5.734 billion as corporate funds of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16)

Defendant 1 borrowed each of the loans of KRW 4.8 billion on November 14, 2005, KRW 1.5 billion on September 26, 2006, and KRW 80 million on January 26, 2007 from Nonindicted Company 2’s own account, and used the same as the acquisition price of shares at the time of capital increase for new shares issued by Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) to repay the loans of KRW 7.1 billion to Nonindicted Company 2’s mutual savings bank. However, in collusion with Nonindicted Company 34, the representative director, who was the representative director in the name of Nonindicted Company 34, the method of raising funds for the repayment of the loans, Defendant 1 decided to repay the loans to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16).

On October 23, 2007, Defendant 1 provided the assets of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) as collateral for the purpose of real estate acquisition fund and operating fund, etc., and took out a loan of KRW 2.1 billion from a new bank with Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) as the borrower of the loan, and took out a loan of KRW 2.1 billion from a new bank, Defendant 1 remitted KRW 5.734 billion among them to Nonindicted Company 7 on November 5, 2007, under the pretext of lending it to Nonindicted Company 7 on November 5, 2007, and used it in full for the purpose of repayment of loans from Nonindicted Company 7.

Accordingly, Defendant 1, in collusion with Nonindicted Company 8’s representative director and Nonindicted Company 34 (Nonindicted Company 16), embezzled KRW 5.734 billion, which was in his business custody, for the victim Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), using at will the personal purpose.

3. Defendant 1’s breach of trust in relation to KRW 3 billion for the corporate funds of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16)

Defendant 1 is an actual manager who exercises overall control over the management of funds, business, etc. of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), as an actual owner of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), and thus, is a person who has a duty to faithfully manage the company’s property.

Defendant 1, from around 2006 to around 207, withdrawn the corporate fund of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) from time to time to time under the name of the representative director’s provisional payment or loan, and paid only a part of it on October 2008, and, at around 4.4 billion won, Defendant 1’s failure to repay it. There was no other way to pay it up to the end of the fiscal year until October 2008, Defendant 1, as an individual business entity, was pretended to purchase a large amount of trees for golf course landscaping from △△ industry without any operational performance, and was to be exempted from its debt by means of offsetting the claim.

Around September 10, 2008, Defendant 1 entered into a false sales contract with Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) to sell an amount equivalent to three billion won in the market value of trees used for landscaping of golf courses. Around October 31, 2008, Defendant 1 entered into a settlement contract with Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) by offsetting KRW 350 million in the accounts as accounts payable on or around October 31, 2008, and immediately on the same day, he/she entered into a settlement of accounts with KRW 350 million in the face-to-face short-term bonds with KRW 350 million in the face-to-face bonds, and around November 30, 2008, he/she entered into a settlement of accounts with KRW 1.7 billion in the face-to-face bonds with KRW 1.5 billion in the face-to-face bonds with KRW 95 billion in the face-to-face bonds with KRW 1.5 billion in the face-to-face bonds with KRW 368 billion in the same manner.

Ultimately, Defendant 1, the actual manager, as the actual owner of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16)’s inspection order and Defendant 1, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) set off and disposes of the false debt against Nonindicted Company 8’s (Nonindicted Company 16) and the “△△△ Industry” of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), thereby causing Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) to lose its claim amounting to KRW 3 billion.

As a result, Defendant 1 violated his duties, in collusion with Nonindicted 34 of the representative director of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), obtained an individual’s provisional payment and exemption from the obligation to return the loan to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), and thereby inflicted property damage equivalent to the same amount on the victim Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16).

4. Defendant 1’s embezzlement of KRW 877,6720,00 for Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16)

From January 24, 2006 to January 31, 2006, Nonindicted Co. 8 (Nonindicted Co. 16) borrowed KRW 3.35 billion from Nonindicted Co. 2’s mutual savings bank. Defendant 1, while keeping the said funds in the course of performing his duties, voluntarily used KRW 877,672 million in total, as shown in the list of crimes, on January 25, 2006, to January 31, 2006, in substance, Defendant 1 paid to Defendant 1-type Nonindicted Co. 4.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 conspiredd with Nonindicted 50 on the name of the representative director of Nonindicted 8 Company (Nonindicted 16 Company) in collusion with Nonindicted 28 and 25 Company (Nonindicted 24 Company) in the name of the victim Nonindicted 8 Company (Nonindicted 16 Company), and Defendant 1 embezzled KRW 877,6720,000 of the loans of Nonindicted 2 mutual savings bank, which was under business custody for the victim Nonindicted 8 Company (Nonindicted 16 Company), for personal use at his own discretion.

5. The embezzlement of Defendant 1’s corporate funds 2.4880,160 million won by Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18)

Defendant 1, who himself was the actual owner of Nonindicted Co. 9 (Nonindicted Co. 18), Nonindicted Co. 8 (Nonindicted Co. 16), and Nonindicted Co. 9 (Nonindicted Co. 18) through the window dressing accounting of Nonindicted Co. 3, the actual owner, intended to embezzled the corporate funds that he received from Nonindicted Co. 2.

On May 3, 2006, Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) borrowed KRW 3 billion from Nonindicted Company 2 for the purpose of operating funds, etc., and on the same day, it paid KRW 1.433 billion to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and KRW 2.481.6 billion in total to Nonindicted Company 3 for each loan.

Nevertheless, Defendant 1 made a false accounting that Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) received a loan from Nonindicted Company 2 as if it were the funds of Defendant 1, and that Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and Nonindicted Company 3 made a false deposit in the name of the representative director’s deposit.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 conspired with the representative director of Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) in the name of the victim Nonindicted Company 10, and embezzled KRW 2.488,16 million for the loans of Nonindicted Company 2 mutual savings bank that Defendant 1 was in business custody for the victim Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) by using them for personal purposes at his own discretion.

6. Defendant 1’s embezzlement of the original embezzlement of Nonindicted Incorporated Corporation 9,907,053,348 note 2)

Defendant 1, in collusion with Nonindicted Co. 12, 42, and 8 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 11”), the actual owner of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 15”), was not able to repay the borrowed money from Nonindicted Co. 2’s mutual savings bank, and Nonindicted Co. 11, who was scriptive, was in need of funds to purchase real estate (hereinafter “new district real estate”) in the redevelopment art area located in the Geumdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, so that the funds would be needed, Defendant 1, as the subcontractor of Nonindicted Co. 8 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 11”), the operator of Nonindicted Co. 11 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 11”), who was under the de facto control of Defendant 1, was an employee of Nonindicted Co. 12, 42, and Nonindicted Co. 8 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 16”), and was able

Defendant 1, around November 2006, proposed that Nonindicted 12 loaned KRW 10 billion from Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank to Nonindicted 12 and used the money for the purpose of paying the real estate price in the new end district to that money. Nonindicted 12 consented thereto.

Defendant 1, on November 22, 2006, had Nonindicted Company 20, an employee of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), take office as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 11. From November 30, 2006 to December 11, 2006, Defendant 11 borrowed KRW 10 billion in total from Nonindicted Company 2’s mutual savings bank for the purpose of the installation and operation of machinery purchase, etc.

Defendant 1, who received the above loans on November 30, 2006, transferred KRW 3,717,33,660 out of the funds of Nonindicted Company 11 as above to Nonindicted Company 30 for the purpose of purchasing real estate in the new terminal area, and then used KRW 9,907,053,348 out of the above loans on 19 occasions regardless of the operation of Nonindicted Company 11, as shown in [Attachment 2] 1 through 8, 11 through 19, 21, and 22 between around that time and around December 11, 206.

Accordingly, Defendant 1, in collusion with Nonindicted 42, 12, and 20, embezzled KRW 9,907,053,348, which was under custody for the victim Nonindicted 11 company, for personal purposes at will.

7. The embezzlement of Defendant 1’s corporate funds 3.5 billion won for Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15)

Defendant 2, a director member of the mutual savings bank of Nonindicted 2, from around 2001 to Nonindicted 13 and 51, made a loan at the discount of Nonindicted 52 Co. 52 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 52”). On June 25, 2004, as Nonindicted Co. 52 was settled bankrupt, Defendant 1 did not have the method of recovering KRW 3.5 billion loans to Nonindicted Co. 13 and 51. Defendant 1 demanded that Nonindicted Co. 1 borrow KRW 3.5 billion from Nonindicted Co. 2’s mutual savings bank and repay loans to Nonindicted Co. 13 and 51. Defendant 1 embezzled Nonindicted Co. 1 (Nonindicted Co. 15) by having him borrow KRW 3.5 billion in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 (Nonindicted Co. 15) who was the actual supervisor and used it to repay loans to Nonindicted Co. 13, etc.

On June 29, 2004, Defendant 1 directed the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15) and received a loan of KRW 3.5 billion from Nonindicted Company 2 in the name of the said company and kept in custody for business purposes, Defendant 1 repaid KRW 3.5 billion to Nonindicted Company 13 and 51 on June 30, 2004, which is the next day.

Accordingly, Defendant 1, in collusion with Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15), the representative director, Nonindicted 43, and Defendant 2 on the treatment of directors of the mutual savings bank in favor of Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15), embezzled KRW 3.5 billion for personal purposes, which the Defendant was in business custody for the victim Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15).

8. Breach of trust in relation to the obligation to acquire shares in Nonindicted Co. 21

Defendant 1 as the actual owner of Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 1 (Nonindicted Co. 15), is the actual manager who exercises overall control over the management of Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 1 (Nonindicted Co. 15)’s funds management, business operation, etc., and thus, he is a person with duty to faithfully manage each of the above company’s assets.

Defendant 1 entered into a contract with Nonindicted Co. 21 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 21”) to acquire a total of KRW 180,000 shares of Nonindicted Co. 21 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 21”) and a company’s management right in total of KRW 7 billion from Apr. 20, 2007, and agreed to pay the price by September 30, 2007. However, Defendant 1 was unable to pay the purchase price by September 30, 2007, and was liable to Nonindicted Co. 14 for the obligation of KRW 7 billion against Defendant 14.

A. Violation of trust by Defendant 1’s issuance of promissory notes by Non-Indicted 1 (Non-Indicted 15)

Defendant 1 issued a promissory note in the name of Nonindicted Company 1 (Non-Indicted Company 15), which was operated by Defendant 1, in the event that Defendant 1 was not able to pay the above KRW 7 billion personal debt to Nonindicted Company 14, and the promissory note in the name of Non-Indicted Company 1 (Non-Indicted Company 15), would be sold, and the part of the acquisition price would be deducted from the acquisition price. On November 30, 207, in violation of the duty to faithfully manage the property of Non-Indicted Company 1 (Non-Indicted Company 15), and paid to Non-Indicted Party 14 after issuance and endorsement of promissory note 350 million won issued and endorsed with Non-Indicted Company 1 (Non-Indicted Company 15).

As a result, Defendant 1 violated his duties, in collusion with Nonindicted Co. 1 (Nonindicted Co. 15) representative director of Nonindicted Co. 43, and provided the right of KRW 3550 million in promissory notes issued by Nonindicted Co. 1 (Nonindicted Co. 15), as a collateral for personal obligations, as well as the pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 3.3555 million in value, and suffered property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim Nonindicted Co. 1 (Nonindicted Co. 15).

B. Violation of trust in relation to the provision of real estate by Defendant 1’s non-indicted 3

Defendant 1 borrowed KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 14 on November 5, 2007, KRW 500 million on December 5, 2007, and KRW 2 billion on April 27, 2009, in personal use of KRW 1 billion on a personal basis, Defendant 1 was unable to repay the debt due to Nonindicted Company 21’s acquisition price obligation and the above loan obligation. Nonindicted 14 demanded additional security by means of creating a collateral security on Nonindicted Company 3’s real estate.

On April 27, 2009, Defendant 1 violated his duty to faithfully manage the real estate of Nonindicted Co. 3, and set up a collateral security (number 1 omitted), (number 20 omitted), (number 21 omitted), (number 22 omitted), (number 23 omitted), (number 23 omitted), (number 24 omitted), (number 25 omitted), (number 26 omitted), (number 26 omitted), (number 27 omitted), (number 27 omitted), (number 27 omitted), on the land and 16 buildings owned by Nonindicted Co. 3, set up a collateral security (number 5 billion won) with the amount of claim collected, KRW 6 billion, the debtor Nonindicted Co. 3, and the mortgagee Nonindicted Co. 14.

As a result, Defendant 1 violated his occupational duties, provided real estate owned by Nonindicted Co. 3 as a security for his personal debt of KRW 6 billion, thereby obtaining property gains and causing property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim Nonindicted Co. 3.

9. The point of defendant 1's aiding and abetting evidence

On June 2009, Defendant 1 started an investigation into violation of the limit of loans by the same person in relation to Defendant 1’s relatives and the companies operated by Defendant 1, etc. from Nonindicted Bank 2’s mutual savings bank, and the relative relatives and the representative directors of each related company were summoned and investigated by the prosecutor, and began to arrange data on the person who requested the vindication of the use of each loan.

On November 30, 2006, Defendant 1 led, from around 30, 2006, instructed Nonindicted Company 11 to the effect that “the amount of KRW 4 billion was used for the purpose of repaying the existing loan to Nonindicted Company 2’s mutual savings bank of Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15), and the amount of KRW 3.7 billion was used as the purchase price for the new terminal area, and that Nonindicted Company 20 was summoned from the prosecutor, who was the representative director in the name of Nonindicted Company 11, as the staff of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), Defendant 1 was summoned from the prosecutor.” Defendant 1 instructed Nonindicted Company 20 to the effect that “the funds were lent through normal procedures and used as the purchase price for the facilities purchased from Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15).”

On June 19, 2009, at the prosecutor's office of Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 519, Nonindicted 20 stated as Defendant 1 the statement and received a request from the prosecutor to submit evidentiary materials. Defendant 1, Defendant 1, without the resolution of the board of directors, did not have any fact that the funds were executed without the resolution of the board of directors and the facilities were purchased from Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15), he did not appear to have been punished as embezzlement or breach of trust in relation to the use of the above funds.

On September 2009, Defendant 1 instructed Nonindicted Company 11 to prepare a sales contract with the content of purchase of machinery and equipment equivalent to KRW 4.1 billion from Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15) for the purpose of pretending that Nonindicted Company 11 was paid as if the corporate funds of Nonindicted Company 11 were paid by the normal resolution of the board of directors at the office located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted) and Nonindicted Company 10, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and Nonindicted Company 20, the employees of Nonindicted Company 8, for the purpose of pretending that the funds of Nonindicted Company 11 were paid by Nonindicted Company 11, and for the purpose of pretending that Nonindicted Company 11 purchased machinery and equipment equivalent to KRW 4.1 billion from Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15).

On the same day, on November 29, 2006, Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 20, in receipt of the foregoing instructions, respectively, drafted a resolution of resolution of board of directors on November 30, 2006, each of the following: “The case of cash lending for the provision of security in the Geum-dong new district in Geumju-dong, the case of purchase of machinery and equipment sand plant” and “the case of purchase of machinery and equipment sand plant,” respectively.

On November 9, 2009, when the internal investigation was initiated on the suspicion that Defendant 1 embezzled the borrowed money from Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank, Defendant 1 submitted the aforementioned false resolution of resolution of board of directors and sales contract to the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office 519 room.

As a result, Defendant 1 assisted Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 20 to prepare false evidence in relation to the investigation of another person's criminal case.

【2010 Highest 1598】

Defendant 2 entered the victim non-indicted 2 mutual savings bank located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number 28 omitted), and worked in the general affairs division and the business division on September 199 after the promotion of the head of the division. On December 199, the head of the operating division, the head of the operating division on September 2, 2002, the head of the operating division on January 2005, the head of the operating division, the head of the operating division on February 2006, and the head of the operating division on February 2007, and worked in the non-indicted 2 mutual savings bank business division for about eight consecutive years until the moving to the general affairs division on June 2007, and from January 2002, the head of the operating division took overall charge of the operating division on June 7, 200).

1. The embezzlement of Defendant 2’s victim Nonindicted 2’s funds of KRW 3.5 billion by the mutual savings bank

Defendant 2 received request from Nonindicted Co. 54, who was a senior debtor of a high school from Nonindicted Co. 52 to grant a loan at a discount of Nonindicted Co. 52, and requested the above Nonindicted Co. 54 and Nonindicted Co. 13 and 51 to make a loan from Nonindicted Co. 52 at the Nonindicted Co. 2’s mutual savings bank as collateral. However, on June 25, 2004, as Nonindicted Co. 52 was settled upon the final bankruptcy, Defendant 2 requested Defendant 1, the president of the ○○○ Group, the president of the ○○ Group, who was close to Nonindicted Co. 51, to make a lump sum repayment of KRW 3.5 billion loans to Nonindicted Co. 13, 2004.

Accordingly, on June 29, 2004, the defendant 1 borrowed 3.5 billion won from the non-indicted 2 mutual savings bank in the name of the non-indicted 1 company operated by himself (non-indicted 15 company) and repaid the loans to the non-indicted 13 and 51 on June 30, 2004 following the loan.

After that, Defendant 2 obtained a loan of KRW 3.5 billion from a mutual savings bank of Nonindicted 2 to use the loan individually, such as the purchase price of shares by Defendant 2, under the pretext of the settlement of the loan of KRW 3.5 billion in the name of Nonindicted 15 Stock Company.

On November 4, 2004, Defendant 2 introduced Nonindicted 55 through Nonindicted 13 to allow the borrowed loan from Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank, and then used KRW 3.5 billion out of the funds of Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank, which the Defendant kept in business as a general manager of the credit business of Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank, as the purchase price of stocks, etc. by borrowing KRW 3.5 billion from Nonindicted 55.

Accordingly, the Defendant received a loan of KRW 3.5 billion from Nonindicted 55 in the name of Nonindicted 55 for the victim Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank, and embezzled it at will by using it for personal purposes, such as the purchase price of stocks.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes by Defendant 2;

Defendant 2 had a duty to accurately evaluate the appraised value and the effective collateral value of the above real estate when he received an application for a loan as collateral while taking overall charge of the loan business of Nonindicted Savings Bank 2, and to provide a reasonable amount after receiving a collateral. Defendant 2 had a duty to not make a loan to the same person exceeding 20/10 of the equity capital of Nonindicted Savings Bank 2.

Defendant 2, the president of the ○○ Group, was carried out with Defendant 1, who is the president of the ○○ Group, and thus, it is impossible to lend more than the loan amount of the same bank. However, Defendant 2, who was the president of the ○○ Group, was able to avoid the provision prohibiting loans exceeding the limit of the loan amount for the same person, to lend money to Defendant 1 in the name

Defendant 2 received from Defendant 1 on four occasions from April 30, 2004 to September 19, 2006 the amount of KRW 7 billion in total from Defendant 1 to Defendant 2’s mutual savings bank of Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul (number 2 omitted) 9,467 square meters as security, and received a request to avoid the provision prohibiting loans exceeding the limit for the same person and borrow the loan (the request was received from Defendant 2 to Defendant 1 for a loan exceeding the effective collateral amount from July 15, 2005 to September 19, 2006).

On September 20, 2006, Defendant 2 received KRW 200 million from Defendant 1 to the account under the pretext of the consideration for the above loan on September 20, 2006.

As a result, Defendant 2 received money of KRW 200 million from Defendant 1 in relation to the duties of financial institutions as its officers.

3. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes by Defendant 1;

Defendant 1 already received a loan in excess of the loan limit for the same person from Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank, and was in a situation in which it is impossible to obtain a loan from Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank. As seen in paragraph 2 above, Defendant 1 requested Defendant 2, a director of Nonindicted 2 mutual savings bank, to grant a loan in the name of Defendant 1’s non-indicted 4, and agreed to obtain a loan by avoiding the provision

From April 30, 2004 to September 19, 2006, Defendant 1 loaned KRW 10 billion in the name of Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank four times from April 30, 2004 to September 19, 2006, and transferred KRW 200 million to Defendant 2 on September 20, 2006 on the following day.

As a result, Defendant 1 provided money of KRW 200 million to the duties of the superior defendant 2, who is an officer of a financial institution.

【2010Gohap1617】

Defendant 3 is a person who was working for the victim non-indicted 2 mutual savings bank located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( parcel number 28 omitted) from August 2004 to October 15, 2007. A person who was working for the victim non-indicted 2 mutual savings bank at the time when the non-indicted 1 applied for a loan of KRW 10 billion to the non-indicted 2 mutual savings bank around November 28, 2006.

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes by Defendant 3;

On November 28, 2006, Defendant 3, as the Chairperson of the Credit Review Committee, had a duty to accurately evaluate the purpose of the loan, the repayment ability of the loan applicant, the appraisal value of the said real estate, and the effective collateral value of the said real estate, and to determine whether to approve the loan, if the non-indicted 11 applied for the loan of KRW 10 billion as collateral for the new district of nine parcels, such as the forest and field located in the Geum-dong (number 29 omitted), which was located in the Geum-dong Special Metropolitan Bank of Korea, as the non-indicted 2.

Nevertheless, around November 28, 2006, Defendant 3 approved to lend KRW 10 billion to Nonindicted Company 11 in return for the solicitation that the real estate in nine new districts, including the land lot in the Geum-dong, Geum-dong, Geum-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number 30 omitted), which was owned by Defendant 1, was provided as a security, from November 28, 2006. The loan was made on November 30, 2006.

On November 30, 2006, Defendant 3 received a delivery of the amount equivalent to KRW 70,370,000 at the market price of gold village (number 31 omitted) 155 square meters in gold village (number 31 omitted) from Defendant 1, who was in charge of the said loan, as the price for the said loan.

As a result, Defendant 3 received 70,370,000 won at the market price of the real estate in return for an illegal solicitation in connection with the duties of financial institutions as its officers.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes by Defendant 1;

On November 2006, Defendant 1: (a) required funds for Nonindicted Company 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 15”) to repay the borrowed funds from Nonindicted Company 2’s mutual savings bank and funds for purchase of the land located in the Geum-dong at the time of strike where redevelopment is anticipated; (b) however, due to the provision on the restriction on loan amount to Defendant 1 or Defendant 1, Defendant 1 was placed in a situation in which it is no longer possible to obtain a loan from Nonindicted Company 2’s mutual savings bank; (c) as such, Defendant 1 applied for a loan of KRW 10 billion to Nonindicted Company 2’s mutual savings bank in the name of Nonindicted Company 11, as described in the foregoing paragraph (1), provided real estate in the new district of nine lots, including the land at the time of the

However, according to the regulations prohibiting loans exceeding the limit for the same person and the credit regulations of non-indicted 2 mutual savings bank, one of the real estate in the new terminal area to be purchased in return for the request from the defendant 3, who is the chairman of the credit review committee, as stated in the above Paragraph 1, was given to the defendant 3 on November 28, 2006, and as a result, on November 28, 2006, the defendant 3 approved the above loan application by the credit review committee, who is the chairman of the credit review committee, and was able to receive a loan of KRW 10 billion on November 30, 2006.

Defendant 1 purchased real estate in the new district, such as 12 lots of real estate located in Geum-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si-si-si-si-si-si-si as the above loan funds, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant 3 in the amount of KRW 70,370,000, which is one of the land prices.

As a result, Defendant 1 provided money equivalent to KRW 70,370,000 to the duties of the superior defendant 3 who is an officer of financial institution.

【Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by Defendant 1 and 2

Defendant 2 had a duty not to receive money or entertainment from interested parties, such as customers, for the purpose of assisting the interested parties in the loan business of Nonindicted Savings Bank 2. The duty of Defendant 2 is to maintain the soundness and profitability of the loan, taking into account the debtor’s credit standing and repayment ability, the purpose of the loan, etc., and to make a loan to maintain the soundness and profitability of the loan. The duty of Defendant 2, upon receiving an application for a loan as security, has to request an appraisal business entity to make a reasonable loan based on the accurate appraised value and effective collateral value of the real estate. The same person has a duty not to make a loan exceeding 20/10 of the equity capital of Nonindicted Savings Bank 2 or not to do so exceeding eight billion won

Although Defendant 1 was carried out in excess of the limit on loans by the same person, Defendant 1 requested Defendant 2 to avoid the provision prohibiting loans exceeding the limit on loans by the same person, and request Defendant 2 to deliver a loan to Nonindicted 4 in one’s own name. Defendant 2 decided to lend to Defendant 1 the amount higher than the appraised value and effective collateral value of the real estate as collateral in the name of Nonindicted 4.

From July 15, 2005 to September 19, 2006, Defendant 1 applied for a loan of KRW 9,467 square meters (number 2 omitted) in Jongno-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the use of land development funds, paid the purchase price of the said land as security for the loan, and made an illegal solicitation that the said land would be offered as a loan to Defendant 2 for a more amount than the appraised value and effective collateral value by avoiding the provision prohibiting loans exceeding the limit to the same person. Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 shall not make an additional loan of KRW 00 billion on July 15, 2005, KRW 200 billion to the interested parties, KRW 3 billion on May 11, 2006, KRW 2000, KRW 30000,000,000,000,000,000 to the same person for the purpose of lending money and KRW 5 billion on September 19, 2006.

Defendant 2 received KRW 200 million from Defendant 1 on September 20, 2006, on September 20, 2006, on the day following the date of the last loan, as the criminal facts of the case in 2010Gohap1598.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 2 conspired with Defendant 1 to obtain each pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 2 billion on July 15, 2005, KRW 3 billion on May 11, 2006, KRW 2 billion on September 19, 2006, and KRW 14 on September 2006, and each loss corresponding to the same amount was inflicted on the mutual savings bank of the victim non-indicted 2.

【2010Gohap1500】

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 1 at the Time of Sales】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. On Defendant 1, the first written statement of the interrogation protocol of the prosecution (the evidence list Nos. 73 and 73 of the case No. 2010Gohap1500; hereinafter “Evidence List”) against Defendant 1 is omitted and only number is entered).

1. Each protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 47 by the prosecution (8,98) and each protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 4 by the prosecution (125) as to Nonindicted 47

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 46 and 6 (5 and 12)

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol of statement (27, 89, 127) against Nonindicted 56, 27, and 7

1. Statement of Nonindicted 6’s Preparation (1)

1. Each statement of the draft review report (9 attached documents), written agreement on acquisition of stocks (13), detailed statement of changes, etc. in stocks (20,21), each investigation report (39,61), 00 group emergency liaison network (70 attached documents), printed out of 00 group website (71 attached documents), deposit settlement statement (72 attached documents), disbursement revenue statement (74), detailed statement of each account transaction (75,76), each return of value-added tax and total tax invoice by purchaser and seller (87 attached documents);

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 2 at the Time of Sales】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 33’s legal statement

1. Part of the protocol of examination of witness concerning Nonindicted 34 in the first trial record;

1. The first written statement about Defendant 1 in part of the interrogation protocol of the prosecution (73)

1. The first written statement concerning Nonindicted 34 by the prosecutor's first written protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 34 (100)

1. Each statement made on Nonindicted 46, 34, and 57 by the prosecutor's office (5, 50, 55) and a copy of the prosecutor's statement made on Nonindicted 57 (53)

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol of statement (42, 127) against Nonindicted 33 and 7

1. Each statement in the examination book (9) of the examination book, detailed statement of changes in stocks, etc. (17, 18, 19), each individual land ownership status (26,31), copies of a copy of a deposit passbook (34), each real estate register (35), each branch of the register of real estate (36 and 59) and each director of the account (36 and 59), each written statement of designation of the project implementer and the approval of the implementation plan for urban planning facilities (40), each written application for the approval of the extension of urban planning facilities, each written statement of examination (40), each written opinion of examination (58,97), reply to each request for investigation cooperation (53 attached documents), each written statement of land register (66, 70, 71, and 96);

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 3 at the Time of Sales】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. The witness Nonindicted 33’s legal statement

1. Each part of the protocol of examination of the witness against Nonindicted 35 in the first and seventh protocol of trial;

1. Entry of Defendant 1 in part of the interrogation protocol of the sixth prosecutor’s office (104) as to Defendant 1;

1. The second written statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution (103) against Nonindicted 34

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor on Nonindicted 34, 40, and 58 (50, 57, and 84)

1. Each of the statements made by the prosecutor against Nonindicted 33 and 35 (42,79, 102)

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 59 and 60 set out (52, 65)

1. Each statement of the state of fluctuation of stocks, etc. (17, 18, 19), reply to the request for cooperation in investigation (37), ledger of accounts (38), each investigation report (51, 70, 71, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 92) and each statement of the contract for supply of trees (72 attached documents);

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 4 at the Time of Sales】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Part of the protocol of examination of witness concerning Nonindicted 4 in the seventh trial record;

1. Each protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 47 by the prosecution (8,98) and each protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 4 by the prosecution (125) as to Nonindicted 47

1. Each statement made by the prosecution against Nonindicted 6 and 17 (12, 106)

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol of statement (27, 50, 89, 127) against Nonindicted 27, 34, and 7

1. Each entry of the certified transcript of a corporate register (11 attached data), a stock acquisition agreement (13), a detailed statement of the state of changes in stocks, etc. (17, 18, 19), and a written statement of deposit of subscription price (72 attached documents);

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 5 at the Time of Sales】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor about Nonindicted 10 in the suspect interrogation protocol (118)

1. Statement made by the prosecution on Nonindicted 46 (5)

1. Part of the prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 34 (50)

1. In each of the investigation reports (10), each of the certified transcript of corporate register (the attached data of 11), the funds tracking map (68) for loans of Nonindicted Company 18 and the ledger of each account (69);

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 6 at the Time of Sales】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. The 8th written statement about Defendant 1 in part of the interrogation protocol of the prosecution (115)

1. The interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 20 as to Nonindicted 20 and the interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 47 as to Nonindicted 47 by the second prosecutor’s office (98, 105)

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor on Nonindicted 46, 58, and 12 (5, 84, 114)

1. Each of the written statements made by the prosecution against Nonindicted 20 and 42 (6, 101, 121)

1. Each entry in the draft review report (9 attached data), each real estate sales contract and each copy of each real estate register (83 attached data), and the details of each account transaction (132 attached data);

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 7 at the Time of Sales】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Legal statement of the superior defendant 2;

1. Entry of Defendant 1 in part of the interrogation protocol of the prosecution (130) on the 12th prosecutor’s office;

1. Statement made by the prosecution on Nonindicted 46 (5)

1. Part of the prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 43 (116)

1. Draft of the examination board (9 attached data), a criminal investigation report (10, 117), and a statement of the status of changes, etc. in stocks (22, 23);

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 8 at the Time of Sales】

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Entry of the 10th prosecutorial suspect interrogation protocol (123) against the defendant 1 in the statement;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 53 and 61 (108, 124)

1. Part of the prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 43 (116)

1. Each description of a investigation report (10, 117), statement of changes, etc. in stocks (22, 23), receipt and promissory note (108) and a copy of the register of real estate register (109 attached data); and

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 9 at the Time of Sales】

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Entry of Defendant 1 in the 11th prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of the suspect concerned (129);

1. Statement on the interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 20 by the prosecution (105)

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor about Nonindicted 10 in the suspect interrogation protocol (118)

1. Statement made by the prosecution on Nonindicted 12 (120)

【2010 Highest 1598】

[Article 1 of the Criminal Act at the Time of Sales]

1. Defendant 2’s legal statement

1. Legal statement of the superior defendant 1;

1. The second written statement against Defendant 2 on the suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution (the evidence list Nos. 52 and 52 of the 2010 Gohap1598 case; hereinafter “Evidence List”)

1. Statement made by the prosecutor of the suspect interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 23 (3)

1. Each statement (16, 19) written by Nonindicted 22

1. Each description of the draft examination report (5), written application for loans (6), credit survey report (8), business registration application (9), business registration certificate (10), inquiry into credit information finance and defective transactions (11), details of deposit transactions (17), and details of bank account transactions (50);

【Offense Nos. 2 and 3 of the Criminal Act at the Time of Sales】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 2;

1. Statements of Defendant 1 in part of the sixth trial records;

1. Each statement of the witness examination protocol on Nonindicted 23 and 62 in the third trial record, each of the witness examination protocol on Nonindicted 63 and 64 in the fourth trial record, each of the witness examination protocol on Nonindicted 22 in the fourth trial record, the fourth, fifth, and sixth trial records

1. Each statement of the witness examination protocol against Nonindicted 44 in the fourth trial record, and part of the witness examination protocol against Nonindicted 4 in the seventh trial record

1. Statement of the 9th prosecutor’s protocol of suspect examination (27) against Defendant 1

1. Statement Nos. 1 and 3 times of suspect interrogation protocol (35, 55) as to Defendant 2 in each part of the statement(55 includes the substitute part);

1. Statement made by the prosecution on Nonindicted 54 (29)

1. Part of the prosecutorial statement on Nonindicted 44 (32)

1. Each description of account transactions (28), detailed statement of transactions (33), investigation report (36), bank account transactions (50), and each credit transaction agreement (66 attached documents);

【2010Gohap1617】

1. Defendant 3’s legal statement

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Defendant 1’s statement in a copy of the 11th protocol of examination of suspect suspect (the No. 31 of the evidence list in 2010 Gohap1617 case; hereinafter “Evidence List”) against Defendant 1

1. Entry of the defendant 3 in part of each protocol of examination of suspect suspect (38 to 42) by the prosecution;

1. Each of the second statements made by the prosecutor's office on Nonindicted 47 and 34 (20,22)

1. Each statement made with respect to Nonindicted 20, 58, 12, and 65 (6, 10, 26, 27, and 28)

1. Each statement of the self-denunciation of Defendant 3 (37), a statement of Nonindicted 66’s preparation, and a statement of the waiver of ownership (43)

1. A copy of the statement of account inquiry, a copy of the examination bill (2), a copy of each credit transaction agreement (3,18), each real estate sales contract (9 attached data), each real estate transaction contract (1, 13 attached data), each account transaction details (1, 13 attached data), the analysis and report of land prices in new regions (13) and each investigation report (17, 19) respectively;

【2010Gohap1681】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 2;

1. Statements of Defendant 1 in part of the sixth trial records;

1. Each statement of the witness examination protocol on Nonindicted 23 and 62 in the third trial record, each of the witness examination protocol on Nonindicted 63 and 64 in the fourth trial record, each of the witness examination protocol on Nonindicted 22 in the fourth trial record, the fourth, fifth, and sixth trial records

1. Each statement of the witness examination protocol against Nonindicted 44 in the fourth trial record, and part of the witness examination protocol against Nonindicted 4 in the seventh trial record

1. The 9th written statement against Defendant 1 in the 9th prosecutorial protocol of suspect examination (the 5th prosecutorial protocol of evidence in the case No. 2010Gohap1681; hereinafter “the 5th prosecutorial protocol of evidence”)

1. Statement Nos. 1 and 3 of the suspect interrogation protocol (9, 23) against Defendant 2 in each part of the protocol of interrogation of the prosecution (including the substitute part) (23);

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor about Nonindicted 23 in the suspect interrogation protocol (3)

1. Part of the prosecutorial statement (7) on Nonindicted 44’s statement

1. Statement of Nonindicted 64 Preparation (35)

1. Each statement of the detailed statement of transactions (8), each investigation report (12, 20, 24, 37, 40), real estate register (18, 48), each letter of credit transaction (28 attached documents, 54, 56 through 59), each review report (4 through 46), each review report (47, 50, 51) and appraisal report (49);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant 1

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 [including the crime of 1.5 billion won against the victim non-indicted 3 company as stated in the judgment of the court below] and Article 30 of the Criminal Act [including the crime of 1.5 billion won against the victim non-indicted 3 company as stated in the crime of 11, the crime of 9,907,053,348 won in business embezzlement as stated in the judgment of the same case, including the crime of 9,907,053, and 348 won in business embezzlement for the victim non-indicted 8 company (non-indicted 16 company) as stated in the crime of the same case, the crime of the same case is punishable by imprisonment for a limited term of 5.734 million won in business embezzlement as stated in the judgment of the court below], each type of imprisonment [However, the upper limit is punished by Article 8 and Article 1(1) of the former Criminal Act for 425 years];

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act [including 87,6720,000 won occupational embezzlement of the victim non-indicted 8 company (non-indicted 16 company) under paragraph (4) of the crime of this case as indicated in the judgment of the same case, which covers 2.888,1.6 million won occupational embezzlement of the victim non-indicted 9 company (non-indicted 18 company) under paragraph (5) of the same crime of this case, and includes 1.5 billion won occupational embezzlement of the victim non-indicted 3 company under subparagraph 1. A of the crime of this case, and 3.5 billion won occupational embezzlement of the victim non-indicted 1 company (non-indicted 15 company) under paragraph (7) of the same crime of this case, each upper limit shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 8(1) and Article 15(1)4 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 154. 154.2054 of the same Act).

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act [it covers the fact of occupational breach of trust of the victim non-indicted 8 (the victim non-indicted 16) under paragraph (3) of the crime in the judgment of 2010Gohap1500, and includes the fact of 3 billion won in occupational breach of trust of the victim non-indicted 1 (the victim non-indicted 15) under paragraph (1) of the crime in the judgment of the same case, 3.5 billion won in occupational breach of trust of the victim non-indicted 1 (the victim non-indicted 15) under Article 8 and Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act, and 200 million won in occupational breach of trust of the victim non-indicted 2 mutual savings bank of the crime in the judgment of the same case. Each upper limit shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of Article 415 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2015)];

○ Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act (the crime of occupational breach of trust against the victim Nonindicted Co. 3 in the case of 2010 Gohap1500) and the choice of imprisonment

○ Articles 155(1) and 31(1) (a) of the Criminal Act (the point of aiding and abetting evidence of paragraph (9) of the crime in the judgment of the case 2010 Gohap1500), each choice of imprisonment with prison labor

○ Articles 6(1) and 5(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the evidence under paragraph (3) of the criminal facts of the case in 2010 Gohap1598, and the evidence under paragraph (2) of the criminal facts of the case in 2010Gohap1617), each choice of imprisonment for each penalty

B. Defendant 2

○ Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act [the crime of paragraph (1) of the same Article in the case of 2010 Gohap1598 shall be deemed to be of occupational embezzlement against the victim non-indicted 2 mutual savings banks: Provided, That the upper limit shall be 15 years of imprisonment prescribed in the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010) in accordance with Articles 8 and 1(1) of the Criminal Act];

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356, Article 355(2), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act [Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356, Article 355(2), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act [Article 8 and the main sentence of Article 1(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010) shall be 15 years of imprisonment with labor for each occupational breach of trust against the victim of the crime committed in the judgment of the case

○ Article 5(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the violation of Article 5(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and the violation of Article 5(1)

C. Defendant 3

○ Article 5(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the violation of Article 5(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the violation of paragraph (1) of the same

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Article 9,907,053,348 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlements) prescribed in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlements) due to occupational embezzlement of KRW 9,907,053,348]

B. Defendant 2

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravated Punishment Act of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlements) and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment (Embezzlements) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 3);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration favorable Circumstances among the Reasons for Sentencing below)

1. Confiscation (Defendant 3);

Articles 10(2) and 5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

1. Additional collection (Defendant 2);

Article 10 (3), (2), and Article 5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

【2010Gohap1500】

1. Defendant 1’s embezzlement of KRW 8.5 billion for Nonindicted Co. 3’s corporate funds

A. On August 24, 2005, the embezzlement of KRW 1.5 billion for Nonindicted Co. 3’s corporate funds

(1) Defendant 1’s assertion 15

① Around May 23, 2005, Nonindicted Co. 5 entered into a construction contract with Nonindicted Co. 3 and the construction work price of KRW 3.25 billion, and carried out the construction work. Nonindicted Co. 3 paid KRW 2 billion in total before June 28, 2005, and paid KRW 1.5 billion in the remainder of the construction work on August 24, 2005 after the completion of the construction. However, since the tax invoice amounting to KRW 1.5 billion was issued as of September 30, 2005, the tax invoice amounting to KRW 1.5 billion was paid before the issuance of the tax invoice.

② On the other hand, Defendant 1, who was insufficient to pay Nonindicted 6 the subscription price for Nonindicted 3’s shares, borrowed the above KRW 1.5 billion from Nonindicted 4, the representative of Nonindicted 5 Company, on August 24, 2005, and Nonindicted 4 deposited the above money directly with Nonindicted 26’s account designated by Defendant 1.

(2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence revealed in the summary of the evidence of the 2010 high-priced 1500 case, Defendant 1, who received shares from Nonindicted Co. 3 with the funds of Nonindicted Co. 3, paid KRW 1.5 billion to Nonindicted Co. 6, and was in charge of accounting as if he paid advance payment for construction cost to Nonindicted Co. 5.

① Nonindicted Co. 4 is the type of Defendant 1’s type, Nonindicted Co. 5 is the company registered under the name of Nonindicted Co. 4, and Nonindicted Co. 5 was the company registered under the name of Nonindicted Co. 4. From July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2006, there was no transaction with any company other than ○○ Group’s affiliates. In March 4, 2004, January 4, 2006, and February 2/4, 2006, Nonindicted Co. 5 was left alone without any transaction outcome as a result of no transaction with the above affiliates. Nonindicted Co. 5 did not have a full-time employee, and the location of the office of Nonindicted Co. 5 was the number 32 omitted, and the place where the office of Nonindicted Co. 5 was resided in the April 90s, not the office, but the office of Nonindicted Co. 5 was closed on July 5, 2006.

② On August 24, 2005, KRW 1.5 billion transferred from the corporate account of Nonindicted Co. 3 to the agricultural cooperative account of Nonindicted Co. 4 was completely deposited on the day, and deposited in the account in the name of Defendant 1 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 26 used by Nonindicted Co. 6.

③ Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 4 did not set the maturity or interest for the above KRW 1.5 billion, nor did they have prepared a certificate of loan, and in fact there was no fact that the interest was paid or the principal was repaid with respect to the above KRW 1.5 billion.

④ Nonindicted 4 made a statement at the prosecutor’s office that Defendant 1 paid the above KRW 1.5 billion to Nonindicted Co. 5 and stated to the effect that “the payment of KRW 1.5 billion is to be made again,” and in light of the content of such statements, it seems that there was an agreement between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 4 on the actual place of use of the money prior to the payment of KRW 1.5 billion to Nonindicted Co. 5.

⑤ On August 24, 2005, the accounting table of Nonindicted Co. 3 stated the above KRW 1.5 billion as “in advance payment of Nonindicted Co. 5, 2000,500,000.”

In general, the term “Advance payment” used in relation to the construction project refers to funds requested by the construction project owner for the purchase of materials to be paid by the construction project owner prior to being paid the construction cost, and for the use of human wages. Since there are many cases to be executed immediately due to the nature of such funds, lending the entire amount to a third party to secure it constitutes an exceptional case in light of the empirical rule. According to the prosecutor’s statement by Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5 Co. 23 did not have any fact that Nonindicted Co. 5 raised the purchase cost, etc. of materials necessary for the construction by any other means.

Defendant 1 asserted that, with respect to the reasons stated in the above statement of accounts on the premise that the tax invoice should be issued at the end of the quarter, the amount should be paid earlier than the issue date of the tax invoice. However, according to the above argument by Defendant 1, Defendant 1, following the above argument, all the construction costs excluding the construction costs to be paid on the day of the end of the quarter shall be the advance payment, thereby going against the common sense. In addition, even according to Defendant 1’s assertion, Defendant 1 shall pay the construction cost of KRW 2 billion prior to the end of the quarter as the construction cost and then paid KRW 1.5 billion as the construction cost prior to September 30, 205, which is the end of the subsequent quarter. Thus, there is no difference between the above KRW 2 billion and KRW 1.5 billion as the payment prior to the end of the quarter. Nevertheless, there is no reasonable ground to treat the accounts by using the expression “Advance payment”.

Furthermore, according to the evidence list Nos. 15-1 and 15-3 submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel, Nonindicted Co. 3 issued a tax invoice for the payment of construction cost to Nonindicted Co. 5 even on June 28, 2005 and October 31, 2005, not on the last day of the quarter. Therefore, even in that there is no reasonable ground to issue a tax invoice for KRW 1.5 billion on August 24, 2005, at the end of the quarter, on September 30, 2005, Defendant 1’s above assertion is difficult.

Therefore, as above, Defendant 1’s above act that paid Nonindicted Co. 3’s acquisition price of his own shares to Nonindicted Co. 6 constitutes embezzlement against Nonindicted Co. 3.

B. On March 30, 2006, embezzlement of KRW 7 billion for Nonindicted Co. 3’s corporate funds

(1) Defendant 1’s assertion 24

① The facts stated in the indictment are recognized. However, the subject who ultimately intended to acquire the management right of Nonindicted Co. 3 was not an individual, but a non-indicted Co. 8 (Nonindicted Co. 16), and Defendant 1 acquired shares from Nonindicted Co. 6 on behalf of the non-indicted Co. 8 (Nonindicted Co. 16). At the time, Defendant 1’s appointment as an agent was highly likely to cause foreign liabilities due to the bad management of Nonindicted Co. 3’s company. The plan of Nonindicted Co. 8 (Nonindicted Co. 16), once it is confirmed that there was no subsequent problem after the acquisition under the name of Defendant 1, the plan of Nonindicted Co. 8 (Nonindicted Co. 16) was completed by acquiring the management right of Nonindicted Co. 3 at that time. Furthermore, the funds necessary for the acquisition process would be once appropriated for the personal funds of Nonindicted Co. 8 (Nonindicted Co. 16) and Defendant 1, and then be settled again in the future.

② The reason why Nonindicted Co. 3 borrowed KRW 8 billion from Nonindicted Co. 2’s mutual savings bank on March 29, 2006 was to utilize the loan as the operating capital of Nonindicted Co. 3. However, after the loan was made, Nonindicted Co. 6 demanded that the balance of the share acquisition price be received. At the time, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 8 (Nonindicted Co. 16) did not have to comply with the said demand.

(2) Determination

The purport of Defendant 1’s assertion is that Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) actually takes over the shares of Nonindicted Company 3, and thus, it seems reasonable to pay the acquisition price of the shares with the funds of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16). However, in full view of the following circumstances: (i) through (vi) the evidence admitted by the summary column of the evidence in the case 2010 high-priced 1500, and (ii) the obligation to pay the acquisition price of the shares of Nonindicted Company 3 to Nonindicted Company 6 is not Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), but Defendant 1 is deemed to be an individual.

① The share transfer contract in which Nonindicted Co. 3’s shares are acquired from Nonindicted Co. 6, etc. is indicated as the transferee by Defendant 1, and Nonindicted 6 also knows that Defendant 1 was to have acquired his own shares.

② Defendant 1 also stated that he borrowed the above KRW 7 billion from Nonindicted Company 3, and some of the down payment and intermediate payment of Nonindicted Company 3’s share acquisition price (total KRW 12.6 billion) was paid out of Defendant 1’s personal funds when he was asked by the prosecution about this part of the criminal facts at the first time.

③ Defendant 1, while paying the subscription price for shares to Nonindicted 6, deposited part of the money in the name of Defendant 1 as well as Defendant 7, and reported changes in the shares for the payment of corporate tax after acquiring the shares, Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 4, a type of sale, as the assignee, were recorded and reported. However, there was no decision made in Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) with regard to the utilization of such names.

On the other hand, Defendant 1 left the shares without changing the name for about five (5) years after the completion of the report on the change of shares as above, and transferred the shares to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) only after being left on January 2010.

④ Defendant 1 asserts that the reason why Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) did not purchase Nonindicted Company 3’s stocks in the name of the corporation is likely to have been concerned with Nonindicted Company 3’s liabilities. This is understood to have been aimed at maintaining the accounting soundness of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16). However, even if Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) acquires the stocks of Nonindicted Company 3, unlike the merger between the corporations, it does not result in a direct financial burden on Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16). However, as Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), it is not likely that an indirect financial burden may occur, but rather, such a burden would not change even if Defendant 1 acquires the stocks in the name of an individual, but rather, it is reasonable to view that the financial burden and the investment burden are more effective in terms of Defendant 1’s acquisition of the stocks in the name of the individual. Therefore, it is difficult to explain the circumstances for Defendant 1’s prior payment of the stocks.

⑤ Although the above KRW 7 billion was stated in the accounting books of Nonindicted Co. 3 at the time as loans or provisional payments against Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 7, there was no record of the period of repayment or interest on the above loans between Nonindicted Co. 3 and Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 7, and in fact there was no fact that Nonindicted Co. 3 urged Defendant 1 to repay the loans from the side of Nonindicted Co. 3.

④ From December 19, 2005, Nonindicted 47 and Nonindicted 27, who were registered as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 3 and in charge of the management and execution of funds of Nonindicted Company 3, who were in charge of the accounting affairs of the company, are all the prosecutions. Since May 2005, Defendant 1 stated that the execution of funds of Nonindicted Company 3 was made with Nonindicted Company 6, Nonindicted 67 office, and Nonindicted 56 office, who was the transferor of shares, and Defendant 1 stated that he was in charge of the management of the funds of Nonindicted Company 3. Furthermore, even if Defendant 1 paid the above KRW 7 billion upon Nonindicted 6’s demand, unless he was forced to act and the responsibility under the Criminal Act is excluded, it does not affect the formation of the crime.

As seen above, since the acquisition price of the shares of Nonindicted Company 3 is the amount to be paid by Defendant 1 to Defendant 1, Defendant 1’s act of paying it with the funds of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) constitutes embezzlement against Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16).

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion cannot be accepted in entirety.

2. Defendant 1’s embezzlement of KRW 5.734 billion as corporate funds of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16)

A. Defendant 1’s assertion 30

① Although Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) intended to purchase a site to develop the golf course called ○○CC, it purchased six parcels of land under the name of the legal entity and there is no possibility to obtain land transaction permission due to the fact that the part of the land was designated as the land transaction permission area. As such, Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) purchased six parcels of land under the name of Nonindicted Company 7, Defendant 1’s wife. At the time, Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) borrowed KRW 7.1 billion from Nonindicted Company 2’s mutual savings bank in the name of Nonindicted Company 7 and appropriated the purchase price for the said part of the land.

② After that, Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) took out a loan of KRW 2.1 billion from the new bank on October 23, 2007, and used it to repay the loan of KRW 5.734 billion in the name of Nonindicted Company 7. This offset the loan of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) by Nonindicted Company 8’s own repayment of its own loan, but on the other hand, Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) lent KRW 5.734 billion to Nonindicted Company 7 as of October 23, 2007, on the one hand, for accounting settlement, and entered in the accounting book as of October 23, 2007, Nonindicted Company 7 sold the above land to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and the purchase price claim and the claim of KRW 5.734 million that Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) should receive from Nonindicted Company 77,400,000.

③ Accordingly, the KRW 5.73 billion can be deemed to have been actually used as the purchase price for the land of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16). Therefore, such a financial execution does not constitute embezzlement.

④ Furthermore, since all of Nonindicted Company 7’s loans 7.1 billion won were used as the land purchase price or the corporate operation fund of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), the responsibility for the repayment of Nonindicted Company 7’s loans is Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), and therefore, it is justifiable to repay the loans with the corporate funds of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16).

B. Determination

Defendant 1’s assertion is premised on the fact that all Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) was used for Nonindicted Company 7’s loan amounting to KRW 7.1 billion. However, according to the evidence, the use of the above loan amounting to KRW 7.1 billion is limited to KRW 1.6 billion, and the land purchased as KRW 1.6 billion is limited to the land in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, and the land in the same Ri, which was purchased as KRW 1.6 billion, and the remaining amount of KRW 5.3 billion can be recognized to have been used for other purposes. Accordingly, in the following cases, it is necessary to examine whether the land in two parcels purchased as KRW 1.6 billion was owned by Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), and whether the remaining amount was used for Nonindicted Company 5.5 billion, and to determine whether the intent of embezzlement was to obtain the illegal acquisition in light of the fact-finding.

(1) Whether the said two parcels of land is owned by Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16)

In light of the circumstances such as the fact that part of the land in the above two parcels of land was first incorporated into the site of ○○CC, Nonindicted 7 was the head office of home, and that Defendant 1 voluntarily stated in the prosecutor’s investigation process that he did not have any knowledge about the sale and purchase of the above land, it appears that Defendant 1 acquired the above two parcels of land under the intention to utilize it for the golf course business of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) as necessary in the future. However, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant 1 had an intention to do so, solely on the ground that he had an intention to do so, he purchased the above two parcels of land in the name of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) in the name of Nonindicted Company 7. Rather, it is difficult to recognize that the above two parcels of land was the land purchased in the name of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16). In full view of the following circumstances: (a) through (vi) the land in the above two parcels of land purchased in the name of Nonindicted Company 14 and the land in the name of Nonindicted Company 16.

① In determining the existence of the intent to illegally acquire the land in the crime of embezzlement, the determination of whether Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) purchased the land in the name of the tea and bears the cost for the purchase, or Defendant 1 transferred the cost for the purchase to the corporation after purchasing the land in the name of the tea, shall be based on a comprehensive and normative evaluation and determination of various circumstances in which the intent of the parties would be inferred at the time of the purchase of the land at the time of the purchase of the land. Therefore, from the standpoint of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) (Nonindicted Company 16), whether the measures were taken to guarantee the actual ownership of the land in the name of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), how the accounting of the corporation in connection with the land at the time of the purchase of the land was conducted, it is inevitable to make a comprehensive determination by taking into account the circumstances, such as how the registration name of the land was re-registered as Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16).

② First of all, from the time when a loan was made under the name of Nonindicted 7 and the time when the land was purchased at KRW 1.6 billion, to November 5, 2007, there was no content regarding the existence of the above land or the execution of funds related thereto among the accounting books and other documents of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) for two years from the time when the said loan was purchased at KRW 1.6 billion. If Defendant 1’s assertion, the sales contract for the above land was concluded under the name of Nonindicted Company 7 on September 30, 2005 or on September 30, 2005 after receiving the loan from Nonindicted Company 2’s mutual savings bank and paying the purchase price for the said loan, and the said land was actually known as the assets of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), and the said land was even known as the assets of Nonindicted Company 3, a person in charge of Nonindicted Company 8’s business at the time when the said land was registered at KRW 168 (6).

Meanwhile, in relation to the land in the remaining four parcels of Nonindicted Company 7 mentioned by Defendant 1, in addition to the land in the above two parcels of land, there is no objective material to support that the land was perceived as the assets of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), or that there was a title trust agreement between Nonindicted Company 7 and Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16). Even if there is no objective material to support the registration title of the above land was registered as Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), it appears that it was made after the lapse of several years from the time of purchase of the land in the form of the land sales contract between Nonindicted Company 7 and Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16).

③ From November 5, 2007, the time when the existence of the said land was first revealed in the company’s documents, such as the accounting books of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) with respect to the share of KRW 638 million in the purchase price from Nonindicted Company 7. Furthermore, Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) was treated as having acquired the said share at a price by purchasing the said share of KRW 638 million in the purchase price from Nonindicted Company 7, and furthermore, it was treated as restricting the representative’s payment and the reflective payment of KRW 638 million in the purchase price to be paid to Nonindicted Company 7.

In addition, with respect to the remaining shares of the above one parcel and the five parcels of land, until the development of the ○CC was completed, no procedure was conducted to register the registration name as a non-indicted 8 company (non-indicted 16 company), and there was no fact that there was no reason for filing an application for land transaction permission related thereto. Rather, with respect to the land (number 4 omitted), the sales contract was concluded on July 1, 2009 with the content that the procedure for ownership transfer registration was completed from non-indicted 7 to non-indicted 68, and there was only the land transaction permission and permission.

④ Examining the current status of the owners of the land located in the ○○CC Japan, it is found that Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) purchased a lot of land directly in the name of the juristic person without borrowing another person’s name from among the land incorporated into the site for a golf course. According to the relevant statutes, even a juristic person may acquire the land within the land transaction permission zone with permission for development activities, and in fact, Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) purchased the land in the name of the juristic person as above. There is no particular difference between the said land and the six lots of land located in the name of Nonindicted Company 7. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to accept Defendant 1’s assertion that there was no choice but to purchase the said six lots of land in the name of the tea.

⑤ Under the premise that Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) purchases the above land from Nonindicted Company 7 in the purchase price of KRW 5.734 billion, it is true that it entered the purchase price in the account book of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) in the debt to be paid to Nonindicted Company 7 in the account book of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16). However, in light of the respective statements in this court, the motive recorded as above in the account book of Nonindicted Company 34 and 33 is not for the ownership of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) but for the same purpose that Nonindicted Company 4 and the above land were stated in the account book of KRW 5.7 billion on November 5, 2007 as short-term loans to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and KRW 4.75 billion on the above account book of KRW 4.7 billion on the same date, it is determined that the above land was in fact written in the account book of KRW 4.75 billion on the above account book of Nonindicted Company 34.75 billion.

6) On the other hand, with respect to the land in the remaining four parcels except the land in the Seocheon City (number 3 omitted) and the land in the same Risan (number 4 omitted), it is not clearly verified how the purchase price was procured or not.

(2) Whether the money used for Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) exists among the remaining loans

(A) Money deposited into the account of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16)

It is true that a sum of KRW 2.626 billion was deposited into the account of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), out of the funds withdrawn from Nonindicted Company 7’s new bank account (Account Number 1 omitted), in which KRW 7.16 billion was deposited, but it is not recognized that such money was used for Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) under the law for the following reasons.

① KRW 1.8 billion on November 14, 2005

Of the above KRW 1.8 billion, 1.6 billion is the money deposited with Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 7’s shares increase price, and thus, it is assessed as the money used for Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 7.

The remaining KRW 200 million is also used in reducing the provisional payment due to the processing of the representative's provisional payment and reflects after being written as the temporary payment by the representative in the account book of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16). Therefore, it is also assessed as the amount used for the representative's individual.

(2) KRW 400 million on September 27, 2006

Since the above KRW 400 million is stated in the money deposited for the representative of the accounting book of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and the substitution of settlement, it shall be assessed as the money used for the representative of the company.

③ KRW 450 million on January 26, 2007 and KRW 51 on January 30, 2007

The above KRW 400 million and KRW 26 million are written as the provisional payment or the temporary payment by the representative on the account books of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and all of them are used to reduce the provisional payment by means of processing against the provisional payment by the representative. Thus, it is also evaluated as the amount used for the representative’s individual.

(B) The remainder of money

Of the loans 7.1 billion won in the name of Nonindicted 7, the remaining money excluding KRW 1.6 billion used as the purchase price for the above land and KRW 2.62 million deposited in the account of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), shall not be deemed to have been used for Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) on the following grounds.

① Nonindicted Co. 24 on November 14, 2005, KRW 500 million on Nov. 14, 2005, KRW 53 billion on Nov. 14, 2005, KRW 500 million on Nov. 14, 2005, KRW 50 million on Sept. 27, 2006, KRW 54 billion on the acquisition price of stocks of Nonindicted Co. 29 on Sept. 27, 2006, KRW 95 million on Jan. 26, 2007, KRW 55 million on Jan. 30, 2007, KRW 60 million on Jan. 30, 2007)

All of the above money was used as the operating fund or investment fund of the affiliates of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), and with respect to the above money, there was no fact that a monetary lending contract was concluded, interest or repayment period was set between Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and the above affiliates, and there was no fact that interest was actually paid, and no entry was made in the account book of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16). Accordingly, the above money is not recognized as the money used for Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16).

(2) Money excluding the above affiliate operating funds, etc.

All of the remaining funds except for the above affiliates are funds used by Defendant 1 in person or deposited in the account book in the name of the relatives of Defendant 1 and the employees of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) affiliated companies, and the funds used or not identified in a room that is not related to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and the said individuals. The above funds also are funds used or not identified. There is no fact that the lending and borrowing of money was concluded between Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and the said individuals, or that there was no fact that the interest was paid, nor was they were actually recorded in the account book of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16). Accordingly, the above funds are not recognized as money used for Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16).

C. Sub-committee

Ultimately, since all of the loans 7.1 billion won in Nonindicted Co. 7 are not recognized as money used for Nonindicted Co. 8 (Nonindicted Co. 16), there is no obligation for Nonindicted Co. 8 (Nonindicted Co. 16) to repay the above loans. Therefore, Defendant 1’s act, which was used to repay part of the above loans, constitutes embezzlement against Nonindicted Co. 8 (Nonindicted Co. 16).

Therefore, Defendant 1’s assertion disputing this cannot be accepted.

3. Defendant 1’s breach of trust in relation to KRW 3 billion for the corporate funds of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16)

A. Defendant 1’s assertion 57

① In fact, around September 10, 2008, Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) purchased a total of KRW 19,397 glue trees, etc. from the Gyeonggi-do Howon-gu, Gyeonggi-do, △△△△ Industrial, for the purpose of landscaping of Nonindicted Company 8’s golf courses, for the purpose of using the 19,397 glue trees, etc., located in (number 9 omitted) and (number 10 omitted) in total.

② After that, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) offseted Defendant 1’s claim for the purchase price and the claim for the provisional payment of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16). Accordingly, Defendant 1 paid the provisional payment of KRW 3 billion to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) in lieu of the said claim. The same applies to Defendant 1’s payment of the provisional payment of KRW 3 billion to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16).

③ Furthermore, at the beginning, Defendant 1’s provisional payment claim against Defendant 1 of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) was not actually paid by Defendant 1, but was paid by Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), and it was merely a bond interest borne by Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), interest on the discount of non-financial rights, interest on the discount of non-financial rights, entertainment expenses, etc., and a bond arising from the charge of accounting in the process

B. Determination

(1) Whether Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) actually purchased trees of the △△ industry

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence revealed in the summary of the evidence in the 2010 high-level and 1500 cases, Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) entered into a contract for the sale of trees with Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and the genuine intent to supply the trees, but Defendant 1’s instructions did not have any fact that Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) entered into a contract for the sale of trees with Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16).

① From September 10, 2008, the date of concluding a contract for the purchase and sale of trees asserted by Defendant 1, to October 2010, trees actually planted in Nonindicted Company 8’s golf course are included in the height of trees, but are merely 588 Gu (59).

② The trees indicated in the tree sales contract as the trees subject to sale and purchase do not actually exist as follows, and some trees existing are owned by a third party, not Defendant 1, as well as those owned by Defendant 1.

i) Down trees, which were planted on the land of the Egrari-ri, Gyeonggi-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Land Number 9 omitted) and (Land Number 10 omitted), were planted for about 25 years by Nonindicted 69, who operated a pharmacy in the head of Howon, and Nonindicted 69 sold this amount to Nonindicted 37 at KRW 10 million on or around 2002, and Nonindicted 37 stated that they had not been sold to a third party until now.

ii) In relation to the land of the 715 land in the Yongsung-gun, Sungwon-gun, Seowon-gun, the land of the 715 land is the state-owned land, and the trees planted there are 62 weeks to the 63) in this court, Nonindicted 35 stated in this court that the land of the 715 land in the 715 land in the 725 land in the 725 land in the 725 land in the 725 land in fact, but there is a question as to whether there is a lot number of land in the 725 land in the 725 land in the 725 area in fact (in the case of the computerized inquiry of registration information, such a lot number does not appear).

iii) The land of the family clan (number 19 omitted) which is the land owned by the clan, and Nonindicted 41, a non-indicted 41, a member of the clan, who planted and managed pine trees at all, with the consent of the clan's representative, stated that the land was not sold to a third party.

iv) With respect to the land in Song-ri 470, Song-ri, Incheon, the above land was transferred to and from around April 2009, and there was no trees at all on the land at present, since the above trees were transferred to and around April 2009, according to the statements in this Chapter in this Chapter, and there was no trees at all on the above land. 65)

v) Land of the parcel number of 15, 200 g. g., two g., two g., two g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g.,

③ As the representative director of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) at the time, Nonindicted 34, who carried out the business related to the adjustment of the above accounts under Defendant 1’s order, is consistently in the prosecutor’s office and this court, and consistently stated that “ Nonindicted 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), in fact, did not consult for the conclusion of the contract for the sale and purchase of trees, or prepared the contract for the sale of trees, or confirmed the trees, and did not make a resolution by the board of directors in relation thereto.”

④ Although Nonindicted 35 stated in the above tree sales contract as a person entrusted with the management of trees by Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), Nonindicted 35 stated in the above tree sales contract that the above contract was actually concluded at the prosecutor’s office and this court, it is not reliable as follows.

i) In the first prosecutor’s office, Nonindicted 35 made a statement to the effect that “△△ Industry was holding part of the above trees from around 2006, and that trees were purchased from Nonindicted 36 at the time of purchase amount to KRW 200 million.” In this court, Nonindicted 35 purchased the above trees from Nonindicted 36 around June 7, 2006 at KRW 1250 million, and then again purchased them from Nonindicted 36 at KRW 36,50 million, and received KRW 200 million out of the above sales amount from △△△△ industry,” and partly reversed the previous prosecutor’s statement by stating that “△△△ industry was paid KRW 350 million from the above △△△ industry.” In addition, it is inconsistent with Nonindicted 35’s statement on the particulars of the sale of trees, and it is inconsistent with Nonindicted 35’s statement that purchased the above trees from around 206 to June 7, 2009.”

ii) Of the above trees subject to the sale, as to the reasons why there was no tree trees on the land at the second 7-1 land at the 2nd e.g., the second e., the second e.g., the second e., the second e., the two g., the two e.g., the instant trees; Nonindicted 35, the first prosecutor’s office, “referring to Defendant 1 and all the trees above the said land were discarded on May 2010,” and then in this court, it would be appropriate that the said trees were sold and purchased. However, there was no trees as they were sent to the employees around September 201, and the said employees were asked to purchase them from the former seller. Accordingly, there was no consistent statement with Nonindicted 35, the landowner, and the landowner’s statement that the lessee had already died at around 2004 and the lessee was paid all trees through a trial without paying rent, and thus, the previous prosecutor’s statement cannot be reversed.

(iii) In the first prosecutor’s office, Nonindicted 35 stated that “ Nonindicted 34 was actually concluded on September 10, 2008, and at the time the sales contract was concluded, Nonindicted 35 copied the said contract to Nonindicted 35 and received it to Nonindicted 35,” and submitted it to the prosecutor’s office, but Nonindicted 34 later stated that he did not prepare or present the said sales contract in the prosecutor’s office and this court, and again appeared as a witness in this court, and stated that “ Nonindicted 34 at the time of the fact of the fact is not memoryd as to whether he was in his place at the time of the fact,” and reversed the previous prosecutor’s statement.

iv) The difference in the amount of the purchase price (1.45,353,280,00 won) sold by Nonindicted 35 to Nonindicted Company 8 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 16”) from Nonindicted 36 and the sales price (79 per share) sold by Nonindicted 35 to Nonindicted Company 8 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 16”) is too large in the number of trees claimed by Nonindicted 35 to be purchased from Nonindicted 36 and the above trees sales contract. In this regard, Nonindicted 35 voluntarily stated in the prosecutorial investigation that the above high price would not be purchased from Nonindicted Company 8 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 16”).

(2) Whether Defendant 1’s claim for provisional payment against Defendant 1 is merely a claim on the account books

Since a claim for provisional payment is assets of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), even though the provisional payment was paid to a representative director or to a third party other than Defendant 1, the act of extinguishing the claim for provisional payment is an act of causing damage to the company and benefiting a third party, and thus, such an act constitutes a crime of breach of trust: Provided, That if the provisional payment was used for Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), from the beginning, for the purpose of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), it cannot be deemed that there was a claim against such provisional payment, and if the provisional payment was extinguished on the account book, it cannot be deemed that the provisional payment was in breach of trust causing damage to the company.

Therefore, from around 2005 to around 2007, the part of the amount indicated as the bonds with the provisional payment claim of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) is deemed to have been actually used for Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), and the part acknowledged as such based on the evidence submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel is as follows. The other part of the provisional payment is insufficient to recognize as having been actually used for Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) only by the evidence submitted by the said defense counsel.

본문내 포함된 표 발생일자 (계정별원장기준) 지출내용 (지출 상대방 사업체) 금액 (원) 관련증거 (변호인 제출 증거목록 순번) 2005. 1. 15. 접대비 (□□□미인촌) 2,400,000 102, 103 2005. 1. 20. 접대비 (□□□미인촌) 980,000 104, 105 2005. 1. 21. 접대비 (◇◇) 500,000 106-1, 107 2005. 1. 22. 접대비 (공소외 72 주식회사) 944,000 108-1, 109 2005. 1. 24. 접대비 (◇◇) 600,000 110-1, 111 2005. 1. 27. 접대비 (공소외 73 주식회사) 691,000 112-2, 113 2005. 1. 28. 접대비 (◇◇) 1,690,000 114-1, 115 2005. 2. 3. 접대비 (공소외 74 주식회사) 1,500,000 121-1, 122 2005. 2. 5. 접대비 (공소외 73 주식회사) 769,000 126, 127 2005. 2. 17. 접대비 (◇◇) 1,100,000 134-1, 135 2005. 2. 17. 접대비 (◇◇) 1,150,000 134-1, 136 2005. 2. 18. 접대비 (☆☆) 4,100,000 137-2, 138 2005. 4. 19. 접대비 (▽▽) 799,000 164 2005. 4. 22. 접대비 (◇◇) 1,000,000 168, 169 2005. 4. 22. 접대비 (◇◇) 1,540,000 170, 171 2005. 4. 23. 접대비 (◎◎) 1,012,000 172, 173 2005. 5. 11. 접대비 (공소외 73 주식회사) 638,000 181, 182 2005. 5. 13. 접대비 (공소외 75 주식회사) 708,500 185, 186 2005. 5. 18. 접대비 (◁◁) 930,000 189, 190 2005. 5. 28. 접대비 (공소외 76 주식회사) 855,500 204, 205 2005. 5. 29. 접대비 (▷▷) 1,340,000 206, 207 2005. 6. 2. 접대비 (◇◇) 1,600,000 210, 211 2005. 6. 2. 접대비 (♤♤) 2,285,000 212, 213 2005. 6. 16. 접대비 (공소외 77 주식회사) 769,500 226, 227 2005. 6. 25. 접대비 (공소외 78 주식회사) 566,000 235, 236 2005. 6. 27. 접대비 (♤♤) 1,378,000 244, 245 2005. 7. 2. 접대비 (공소외 78 주식회사) 959,000 248, 249 2005. 7. 2. 접대비 (공소외 77 주식회사) 933,500 250, 251 2005. 7. 4. 접대비 (◈◈가든) 1,547,000 252, 253 2005. 7. 10. 접대비 (공소외 77 주식회사) 907,500 258, 259 2005. 7. 11. 접대비 (◇◇) 1,500,000 262, 263 2005. 7. 11. 접대비 (◇◇) 550,000 264, 265 2005. 7. 11. 접대비 (공소외 78 주식회사) 708,000 266, 267 2005. 7. 12. 접대비 (◐◐스포츠) 740,000 269, 270 2005. 7. 16. 접대비 (♡♡개발) 656,000 273, 274 2005. 7. 29. 접대비 (▽▽) 500,000 278, 279 2005. 7. 30. 접대비 (●●CC) 920,000 280, 281 2005. 7. 30. 접대비 (공소외 75 주식회사) 512,000 280, 282 2005. 7. 31. 접대비 (공소외 77 주식회사) 1,059,500 283, 284 2005. 8. 8. 접대비 (공소외 73 주식회사) 720,000 290, 291 2005. 8. 9. 접대비 (♤♤) 650,000 293, 294 2005. 8. 21. 접대비 (▲▲컨트리클럽) 855,000 296, 297 2005. 9. 12. 접대비 (■■■ 파주점) 2,000,000 303, 304 2005. 9. 12. 접대비 (■■■ 파주점) 500,000 305, 306-2 2005. 9. 12. 접대비 (■■■ 파주점) 4,000,000 305, 306-1 2005. 9. 13. 접대비 (◇◇) 1,100,000 309, 310 2005. 10. 8. 접대비 (공소외 79 주식회사) 905,500 318, 319 2005. 10. 8. 접대비 (공소외 77 주식회사) 938,000 324, 325 2005. 10. 17. 접대비 (♤♤) 3,500,000 326, 327 2005. 10. 17. 접대비 (▲▲컨트리클럽) 862,500 326, 328 2005. 10. 21. 접대비 (□□□미인촌) 1,600,000 330, 331 2005. 11. 21. 접대비 (◇◇) 680,000 341, 342-2 2005. 11. 25. 접대비 (♤♤) 2,350,000 344, 345-3 2005. 12. 10. 접대비 (공소외 77 주식회사) 948,500 349, 350 2005. 12. 11. 접대비 (공소외 77 주식회사 주식 회사) 973,000 351, 352-1 2005. 12. 29. 접대비 (공소외 78 주식회사) 690,500 357, 359 2005. 12. 29. 접대비 (◆◆컨트리클럽) 738,500 357, 358 2007. 5. 31. 갑종근로소득세 4,717,980 610, 611 2007. 5. 31. 주민세 471,790 610, 612 2007. 5. 31. 갑종근로소득세 17,958,410 610, 613 2007. 5. 31. 주민세 1,795,840 610, 614 2007. 5. 31. 갑종근로소득세 40,362,040 610, 615 2007. 5. 31. 주민세 4,036,200 610, 616 2007. 8. 16. 직원식사대금 (★★가든) 14,000 620, 621 합계액 136,705,760원

Therefore, the provisional payment amounting to KRW 4,295,69,70 is merely KRW 136,70,760 that was actually used for the company among the provisional payment amounting to KRW 4,432,405,466, which was transferred to the account of the principal, appointment, and paper loans of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) around October 2008, which was at the time of the crime of this case, and the provisional payment amounting to KRW 4,295,69,70 is a substantial asset of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16). Therefore, inasmuch as the provisional payment amounting to KRW 3 billion was set off against false claims and the provisional payment amounting to KRW 3 billion was extinguished, it shall be deemed that Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) suffered property damage equivalent to the above KRW 3 billion.

C. Sub-committee

As above, Defendant 1’s act of causing a claim for the purchase price of false trees against Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and extinguishing the claim for provisional payment corresponding to the assets of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) by using the claim constitutes a breach of trust against the victim Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16).

Therefore, Defendant 1’s assertion disputing this cannot be accepted.

4. The embezzlement of Defendant 1’s corporate funds 87,6720,000 won by Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16)

A. Defendant 1’s assertion 84

All facts stated in the indictment are recognized. However, 60 million won paid to Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15) on January 31, 2006 was used as the payment for the settlement of the bill issued by Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15) for the payment of the purchase price of the shares of Nonindicted Company 3. However, since the actual underwriter of the shares of Nonindicted Company 3 was Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), the actual underwriter of the shares of Nonindicted Company 3 is liable for the payment of the purchase price of the shares is also in Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16). Therefore, it does not constitute embezzlement to pay the purchase price of the shares with the funds of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16).

B. Determination

As seen earlier, the responsibility to pay the acquisition price of the shares of Nonindicted Company 3 is not Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), but Defendant 1 is an individual, as seen in Section 1-B (2) of the “Determination on the Opinions of Defendants 1, 2, and Defense Counsel” in the case of 2010 Gohap1500.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion, which is premised on the fact that he was responsible for paying the above share acquisition price to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) is difficult to accept.

5. The embezzlement of Defendant 1’s corporate funds 2.4880,160 million won by Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18)

A. Defendant 1’s assertion 85

Although it is not accurate to enter funds deposited in Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and Nonindicted Company 3 in the account books of each of the above companies in the account books of each of the above companies as the representative director's deposit money, the account books of Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) also entered them in the short-term loan of Defendant 1, and maintain the above account books of each of the above bonds, there is no room for special problems.

B. Determination

The purport of Defendant 1’s assertion is that Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) lent funds normally to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and Nonindicted Company 3, or that Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) lent funds in order to Defendant 1, Defendant 1 again lent funds to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and Nonindicted Company 3, and Defendant 1 appears to have no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition of the above funds. Accordingly, we examine whether this is recognized as a normal act of lending funds.

(1) The basic facts

① In the minutes of the board of directors’ meeting of Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18 on April 20, 2006), “the contents of loans (pre-use), loans: Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) - KRW 1.5 billion: Loans: Nonindicted Company 3 - KRW 1 billion, and operating funds: KRW 500 million.” Nonindicted Company 10 and Nonindicted Company 80, and Nonindicted Company 81 affixed seals.

② The draft review by Nonindicted Bank 2 on April 25, 2006, prepared in the process of examining Nonindicted Company 9’s loans to Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18), stated “The funds secured for the prompt receipt of contracts for the construction of this case Saipan D Hotel,” and “the projects to create the main Dom dm dm dm em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em s e

In addition, a letter of credit transaction made after the above loan was approved is indicated as 3 billion won, 24 months of credit period, 9.5% per annum, and 23% per annum, and Defendant 1, Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), and Nonindicted Company 3 signed and sealed as joint and several sureties.

③ The loan of KRW 3 billion was transferred from the above account of Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) to the account of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), on May 3, 2006, to which KRW 1.433 billion out of the loan was transferred from the above account of Nonindicted Company 9 to the account of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16).

On the other hand, the above KRW 1.433 billion was written as the provisional payment for the representative on the accounting books of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16). The provisional payment of KRW 1.433333 billion was written as the provisional payment for the above KRW 1.6 million from that time to May 10, 2006, which had existed in the past from that time to May 10, 2006, all of the provisional payment for the representative of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) was set off and terminated, and all of the provisional payment for the said KRW 89).

④ On May 3, 2006, on the date of the above loan, from the above account of Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) to the account of Nonindicted Company 3, the KRW 1 billion out of the loan was transferred.

On the other hand, the above KRW 1 billion was entered in the account books of Nonindicted Co. 3 as the short-term rent of Nonindicted Co. 3 with respect to Defendant 1. The above KRW 1 billion from January 1, 2008 to KRW 1,000,000,000,000 was repaid in the form of a half of the provisional payment system on the account books, or offseted against Defendant 1’s loans, and eventually terminated by offsetting Defendant 1 with Defendant 3’s loans.

(2) Determination as to the existence of unlawful acquisition intent

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed in the summary of the evidence in the case 2010 high-priced 1500, Defendant 1 paid KRW 2.488 billion out of the loans of Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18), with the intention of unlawful acquisition, to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and Nonindicted Company 3.

① First, we examine whether each of the above loans was normally lent from Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and Nonindicted Company 3.

At the time, Nonindicted 10, who was the representative of Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18), stated in the prosecutorial office that “ Nonindicted 10, who was the representative of Nonindicted Company 9, was in need of KRW 500 million for the Company’s operating fund, and Defendant 1, who was the defendant 2’s sexual intercourse with the loans of KRW 3 billion from Nonindicted 2 Mutual Savings Bank, sent the remainder of the loans except KRW 500 million,” and “the minutes of the board of directors dated April 20, 2006, paid the loans as requested by Defendant 1, and only was prepared formally for accounting settlement on or after the end of May 2006.” In light of the fact that the place of use stated in the review division of Nonindicted 2 Mutual Savings Bank’s operating fund was not used for the above board of directors’ operating fund in the process of the above board’s lending, the above statement made by Nonindicted 10 was credibility.

Furthermore, there is no fact that there was no agreement between Nonindicted Company 9 (Non-Indicted 18), Non-Indicted 8 (Non-Indicted 16), and Non-Indicted 3 on loans, and there was no fact that set the period of repayment or interest, and the accounting itself was not arranged as a transaction between the corporations.

In full view of these circumstances, it is determined that each of the above loans was not paid to Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) and Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) based on normal transactional relations between the corporations.

② Next, we examine whether Defendant 1 borrowed each of the above loans from Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) in a normal manner, and then again lent it to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and Nonindicted Company 3.

In the account book of Domink and Non-Indicted 9 (Non-Indicted 18), the phrase “Defendant 1’s short-term loans” as to each of the above loans was stated in the account book of the above company. However, even between Defendant 1 and Non-Indicted 9 (Non-Indicted 18), there was no set time for payment or interest, and Defendant 1 did not pay interest to Non-Indicted 9 (Non-Indicted 18) or bear interest directly for the loan interest of Non-Indicted 9 (Non-Indicted 18).

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1 borrowed each of the above loans from Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) normally.

Rather, Defendant 1, who deposited the funds of Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) in person with Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and Nonindicted Company 3, managed each of the above funds on the account books of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and Nonindicted Company 3 as being deposited in one’s own account, and obtained a benefit by offsetting the funds paid by the representative or the loans of Nonindicted Company 1 with the loans of Nonindicted Company 1.

On the other hand, in relation to this, Defendant 1 asserted that the claim for provisional payment by the representative of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) was a false claim existing only in the account book. However, prior to the fact that it is not recognized as a false claim, Defendant 1 asserted that it was a false claim, Defendant 3-b. (2) of the “Determination on Defendant 1, 2 and defense counsel’s assertion” in the case of 2010 Gohap1500.

C. Sub-committee

As above, Defendant 1’s act of depositing the funds of Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18) into Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and Nonindicted Company 3 without undergoing normal procedures for lending funds of Nonindicted Company 1 constitutes embezzlement against the victim Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18).

Therefore, Defendant 1’s assertion disputing this cannot be accepted.

6. The embezzlement of Defendant 1’s corporate funds amounting to KRW 9,907,053,348

A. As to [Attachment 2. The whole list of crimes:

(1) Defendant 1’s assertion 95

Defendant 1, regardless of Nonindicted Company 11, used the loans in the name of Nonindicted Company 11 as repayment of the new district real estate purchase price and the loans of Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15). However, in the process, Defendant 1 obtained the consent of Nonindicted Company 12, the actual representative director of Nonindicted Company 11, and thus, it is doubtful whether such act constitutes embezzlement.

(2) Determination

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, the crime of embezzlement may not be exempted regardless of whether the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors passed a resolution regarding such disposal. 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, such intent of disposal as his/her own property. It does not impede the recognition of the intent of unlawful acquisition even if he/she either returns it later or compensates for it (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3045, Aug. 19, 2005, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, in a case where Defendant 1 conspired with Nonindicted Company 12 in collusion with Nonindicted Company 12 for the benefit of Defendant 1 or Nonindicted Company 11 (Nonindicted Company 15), as long as Nonindicted Company 11 arbitrarily used the loans of Nonindicted Company 11 without entering into a loan agreement with Nonindicted Company 11 by setting the due date and setting the period of payment, the lending agreement is not possible, even if the actual representative director of Nonindicted Company 11 gave consent during that process, it does not hinder the establishment of embezzlement.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion is rejected.

B. Attached 2. The embezzlement of 80 million won by Nos. 13-13-2 and 16-70 million won by embezzlement

Defendant 1 used the above money by Nonindicted Company 11 for the repayment of the money borrowed from Nonindicted Company 19 and 20, which seems not to constitute embezzlement.

Therefore, according to the evidence list Nos. 68 and 70 submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel, even though the fact of transfer of KRW 80 million from the Nonindicted Company 11’s account to the Nonindicted Company 19’s account, and KRW 70 million from Nonindicted Company 20 to the Nonindicted Company 19’s account, it is difficult to readily conclude that the said amount was used for the repayment of the loan borrowed by Nonindicted Company 11, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion is rejected.

C. Attached 2. The point of embezzlement of KRW 4.028.7 billion in the No. 14-200,000 in the crime list No. 19-20,000 in the aggregate

Defendant 1 used the above KRW 4,00,000,000 to repay loans to Nonindicted Co. 1 (Nonindicted Co. 15) for Nonindicted Co. 2’s loans to Nonindicted Co. 1 (Nonindicted Co. 15). Defendant 1 used the above KRW 20,000 as ○○ Group’s shares acquisition fund for ○○ Group’s affiliates to acquire stocks of Nonindicted Co. 29. Thus, all of them appears not to constitute embezzlement.

However, even if each of the above amounts was used for ○○ Group affiliate companies, including Nonindicted Co. 1 (Nonindicted Co. 15), the intent of unlawful acquisition of embezzlement is not denied unless it is acknowledged that an agreement was entered into between the pertinent affiliate and Nonindicted Co. 11, or that the interest or maturity was set and the interest was actually paid between the above two corporations.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion is rejected.

7. The embezzlement of Defendant 1’s corporate funds 3.5 billion won for Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15)

A. Defendant 1’s assertion 99)

All facts stated in the indictment are recognized. However, Defendant 1 believed to be immediately resolved by Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank, i.e., “If a loan of KRW 3.5 billion is received and sent to Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank, Defendant 1 would cause a loan to repay the above KRW 3.5 billion by making a loan at the place where the loan was re-paid after having repaid the loan with the money, and thus, he would be able to repay the loan of KRW 3.5 billion.”

B. Determination

The purport of the defendant 1's assertion is to say that there is no intention of illegal acquisition, since he knew that he temporarily uses the above 3.5 billion won.

However, according to the evidence of 2010 high 150 cases at the request of the above defendant 1, the defendant 1 received loans from the above defendant 2 at one place among the affiliates of the ○○ Group, and sent them to the non-indicted 2 mutual savings bank. The above affiliate loans will be resolved, and the above affiliate loans will be repaid by causing them to be repaid at the place where the non-indicted 2 was borrowed. The defendant 1 selected the non-indicted 1 (the non-indicted 15) as an affiliate to receive the loans, and notified the non-indicted 43, the representative director, of the contents of the loans at the request of the defendant 2, and sent the funds to the non-indicted 150,000 won. Even if the non-indicted 43 received loans from the non-indicted 2,500,000 won under the name of the non-indicted 1,50,000 won, the non-indicted 1,500,000 won under the name of the defendant 2 and the non-indicted 1369.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s assertion disputing this cannot be accepted.

【2010 Highest 1598】

1. The above defendants 1 and 2's assertion about the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes)

The amount of KRW 200 million paid to Defendant 2 is not that provided in advance in return for the payment of the case for the loan. Defendant 1 was demanded to lend KRW 200 million from Defendant 2 and lent KRW 200 million to Defendant 2.

2. Determination

Defendant 1 asked at the first public prosecutor's office that he received money of KRW 200 million from Nonindicted 2 on September 19, 2006 at KRW 200 million from Nonindicted 4 bank in the name of Nonindicted 2. Defendant 2 asked that “I would like to know that I would like to know that I would have been 40 million in cash, and that I would like to know that I would have been 40 billion won in cash, and that I would like to know that I would have received money in the name of Nonindicted 2, 400,000,000 won, and that I would have been 40 billion in cash, and that I would like to know that I would have received money in the name of Nonindicted 2, 400,000,000 won, and that I would have received money in the name of Nonindicted 2,400,000,000 won, and that I would have been able to receive money in the name of Defendant 2,000,000 won.”

After that, in this court, Defendant 1 reversed the above prosecutor’s statement by asserting that the facts were lent KRW 200 million to Defendant 2. However, in full view of the following circumstances, Defendant 1’s above legal statement is difficult to believe it and credibility of the prosecutor’s statement is recognized.

① Defendant 1 did not prepare a certificate of borrowing KRW 200,00,000 as of September 20, 2006 or set the period of repayment or interest on KRW 200,000,000, or Defendant 2 did not directly repay the above KRW 200,000 to Defendant 1).

② There are circumstances consistent with Defendant 1’s prosecutor’s statement.

Non-Indicted 4, who is Defendant 1’s type of business and driving engineer, consistently stated in this court and prosecutorial office that “at the time, Defendant 1 instructed Non-Indicted 4 and 200 million won (Non-Indicted 4) to send them to Defendant 2 via a person who is believed to have been in the annual account.” In addition, according to financial information, such as the current account transaction details, it is confirmed that KRW 200 million was deposited from Nonindicted 4’s account to Defendant 2’s account via Nonindicted 44 and 45’s account. This is consistent with Defendant 1’s prosecutorial statement.

③ Defendant 1 presented a false answer to the purport that affirms the prosecutor’s question in order to cooperate with the investigation at the time of the prosecutor’s statement. However, in the process of interrogation of a suspect by the prosecution, Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 2 had been given KRW 200,000 to June 30, 2006, separately from the above KRW 200,000,000, Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 2 had been given KRW 200,000,000,000 to June 30, 2006, and the above KRW 20,000,000 on September 20, 206 was divided into a match, and provided a false statement to cooperate with the prosecutor’s investigation, such as Defendant 1’s assertion, there is no reasonable ground to believe that each of the above two cases was different from the above two cases.

On the other hand, there is a difference between the two. (i) the above KRW 200 million on June 30, 2006, compared to the direct transfer from Defendant 1’s account to Defendant 2’s account, the KRW 200 million on September 20, 2006, which was deposited into Defendant 2’s account via Nonindicted 4, 44, and 45; (ii) and the above KRW 200 million on June 30, 206, compared to the direct transfer from Defendant 1’s account to Defendant 2’s account; and (iii) the above KRW 200,000 on September 20, 2006, which was not paid until the last four years thereafter.

④ From September 199 to around January 2005, Defendant 2 started with the work of the director in charge of the business division of Nonindicted Bank 2’s mutual savings bank from around January 2005, and from around February 2006, he was in charge of the director in charge of the business division, and from around February 109, Defendant 2 was in charge of the position of the director in charge of the business division. While Defendant 2 worked in the business division, Nonindicted Bank 2 was in charge of the business division until September 2006, by means of preparing a false credit transaction agreement without stating the joint guarantor’s name in order to avoid the limit of the same amount of loans (8 billion won in the case of Nonindicted Bank 2’s mutual savings bank), Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18), Nonindicted Company 25 (Nonindicted Company 24), and Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15), Defendant 1’s total amount of KRW 22 billion in the appraised value of Defendant 1, 2015 as follows.

Furthermore, in this situation, around September 2006, Defendant 2 instructed Nonindicted 23, a staff member of the business division, to lend additional KRW 2 billion to Defendant 1 as collateral, and accordingly, on September 19, 2006, additional loans of KRW 2 billion was implemented in the name of Nonindicted 4. Defendant 1 delivered KRW 200 million out of the above additional loans of KRW 2 billion to Defendant 2 on September 20, 2006, immediately following the following day to Defendant 2. On September 19, 2006, the additional loans of KRW 111), which was made by means of preparing a false credit transaction agreement in which joint and several sureties did not enter.

⑤ At the time of September 20, 2006, as seen in paragraph (7) of the part of the instant case, Defendant 2 had already been aware of the details of direct transactions by remitting money via other accounts and additionally lending KRW 200 million, in light of the empirical rule, it is difficult to readily believe that: (a) Defendant 2 did not take any measures necessary for the refund of loans, such as Defendant 1’s receipt of the loan certificate; and (b) Defendant 2 had, as seen in paragraph (7) of the part of the instant case, Defendant 1, 2010 Manhap1500; and (c) would have been used for the repayment of bad loans and immediately settled the loan amount; and (c) Defendant 1 did not have to take any measures necessary for the repayment of loans.

④ Nonindicted 22 and Nonindicted 23, who are subordinate employees of Defendant 2’s subsidiaries belonging to the business department of Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank, had been issued a check of KRW 10 million issued by Nonindicted Company 25 (Nonindicted Company 24) through Defendant 2 around December 2005, and Nonindicted 23, who are employees of the said business department, operated a golf trip with Defendant 1 in Jeju-do, around January 2007. At the time, the aforementioned travel expenses were actually borne by Defendant 1).

3. Conclusion

In full view of the above contents of Defendant 1’s statement at the prosecutor’s office and all the circumstances before and after the receipt of KRW 200 million, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 given and received KRW 200 million in return for the loan of KRW 2 billion from September 19, 2006, which Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 made with Nonindicted 4 as the borrower, as the executive officers of Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant 1 and 2 disputing this cannot be accepted.

【2010Gohap1617】

1. Details of the defendant's assertion regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes against the defendant 1;

After the loan examination was completed with the content that Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank loaned KRW 10 billion to Nonindicted Company 11 on the security of nine lots, including the Geum-dong (number 30 omitted), Geum-dong (number 243 square meters), Geum-dong (number 30 omitted), which is located in the area redevelopment of housing in the area redevelopment of housing, Defendant 1 sought to find Defendant 3 on the personnel level, and Defendant 3 on the spot stated that Defendant 3 want to report on the land investment.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 sold the land in the Geum-dong (number 31 omitted) which is another land located in the said new district to Defendant 3, and the purchase price was settled with Defendant 3’s previous loan claim amounting to KRW 200 million against Defendant 1.

그런데 피고인 1이 상피고인 3에게 토지에 관한 소유권이전등기를 마쳐준 이후, 피고인 1은 ‘대여금 변제 등의 관계를 명확히 하고 계좌에 근거를 남겨두라.’고 하는 주변인의 조언을 받고 계획을 바꿨다. 이에 따라 피고인 1은 2007. 12.경 상피고인 3에게 차용금에 대한 변제 조로 2억 원을 지급하고, 위 상피고인에게 토지 대금을 별도로 지급해 달라고 요청하였다. 위 요청에 따라 상피고인 3은 그 토지 대금이 7천 몇 백만 원이라는 전제하에, 피고인 1로부터 지급받지 못한 고문료 6,000만 원을 공제하고 나머지 2,000만 원을 피고인 1에게 지급하여 주었다 주114) .

2. Determination

Unlike Defendant 1’s assertion in this Court, Defendant 3 stated that the gold village (number 31 omitted) land was not purchased from Defendant 1 since November 30, 2006 to December 11, 2006 because Defendant 1 was paid the price for the loan of KRW 10 billion in the name of Nonindicted Company 11, which was implemented between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1, and that it was not purchased from Defendant 1. In light of the following circumstances, Defendant 3’s above statement is deemed to be sufficiently reliable.

① Defendant 3, through two times in this court’s examination process, stated that “The actual contents were given to Defendant 1, and the existing loan amount of KRW 200 million to Defendant 1 was to be returned from Defendant 1,” and that “Defendant 1 purchased three parcels, other than nine parcels of collateral for the loan of KRW 10 billion under the name of Nonindicted Company 11, and that one parcel was closed to Nonindicted 43, and that one parcel was sent to Nonindicted 34, and that one piece of land was sent to Defendant 3, and that Nonindicted 1 made a statement to Nonindicted 15, on December 206, 206, with Nonindicted 1’s request to the effect that it would result in the investigation of Nonindicted Company 1’s land.” However, upon the commencement of the investigation of this case, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2’s statement to the effect that it would result in the investigation of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1’s land.

② Nonindicted 12 received the same request at the upper ambling office of the first ambling Defendant 3 at the Prosecutor’s Office. Nonindicted 12 stated, “At the time, once he was aware of the fact at that ambling, he would have received cash in one year and six months, and he would have received it in a specific manner.” “At around 2002, Nonindicted 12 told that she would be a dump truck driver, and she would be able to ask her to introduce bank services to her first dump truck, and she would not be a problem so that she would not be said to do so, Nonindicted 1 would not be said to be said to have been said dumped at the first ambling office of the first ambling and the second 6th ambling of Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 4, 8, Nonindicted 2008.

Defendant 1 also stated in the prosecution that “I would like to make an investment in this land even though I would like to do so after the approval for the loan was separated, I would like to say that I would like to do so. I would like to make an investment in this land even though I would like to do so.” Thus, I stated that Defendant 3 was the king of the land he purchased by Defendant 1, and that Defendant 3 was called as the king of the first place, and it was called Defendant 119).

③ 20 million won, which Defendant 3 lent to Defendant 1 on November 2006, was not the surplus funds of Defendant 3, but the funds borrowed from Defendant 84. Thus, Defendant 3 was in the position to return this money from Defendant 1 and pay it to Nonindicted 84, and Defendant 3 was in the position to pay it to Defendant 1. In light of these circumstances, in fact, Defendant 3’s statement that Defendant 3 was considered to have been able to receive the purchase price of the land in the Geumdong-dong (number 31 omitted) without offsetting the loan of KRW 200 million, and instead to receive it free of charge at the same time is credibility.

④ On November 12, 2010, Defendant 3, who was present at the prosecution on November 22, 2010 and submitted a self-denunciation and was investigated, stated that “The receipt of the land from Defendant 1 would be punished on the grounds that it would be a bribe for receiving the punishment on the grounds that it would be a bribe.” On November 22, 2010, Defendant 3 sought a line after hearing from Nonindicted 85, who was the wife, the fact that the arrest warrant was issued on the instant criminal facts, and going to the front and the rear-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Daejeon, and the Daejeon War for about ten days. In addition, Defendant 3 was present at the prosecution on November 22, 2010 and submitted a self-denunciation and was investigated.

⑤ According to the statement made by the above defendant 3, the defendant 1 did not have any consultation with the above defendant 3 on the size of the land and the settlement price of the land (number 31 omitted) in the Geum-dong, Geum-dong, and even without confirming that the above defendant 3 agreed to the land subject to the transfer of ownership (number 31 omitted) from among several lots of land located in the Geum-dong, Geum-dong, the procedure for the transfer of ownership was completed under the name of the above defendant 3. The above defendant 3 knew that the registration was completed through the certified judicial scrivener's office only after that time.

As to this point, Defendant 1 stated at the prosecutor's office that "it has been accepted with the seal impression affixed to the above defendant 3 with a sales contract." Defendant 1's defense counsel at the time received documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership from the above defendant 3, and asked questions as to whether the above defendant 3 was not subject to the registration of the transfer of ownership. The purport of all of the above statements and questions seems to have been known in advance to the fact that the land (number 31 omitted) is subject to the registration of the transfer of ownership. However, it is difficult to say that the sales contract was prepared for the registration of the transfer of land at the time of Geum-dong (number 31 omitted), which was prepared for the registration of the transfer of ownership of the above land under the name of the defendant 1, the number of the non-indicted 2, the number of the non-indicted 3 and the number of the non-indicted 1, the number of the non-indicted 2, which was set up on the same day, to be acquired under the name of the defendant 36).

④ In order to avoid the restriction on the lending limit of loans to Nonindicted Co. 11 approved by Defendant 3 as the chairman of the loan review committee, the above loans were replaced by Nonindicted Co. 11 in the corporate register with the consent of Nonindicted Co. 12, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 12, the subordinate company of Nonindicted Co. 8 (Nonindicted Co. 16), who is the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 11, who is the subordinate company of Nonindicted Co. 11, the same person, and applied for the name of Nonindicted Co. 11. At the same time, the above loans were made between Nonindicted Co. 2 and the mutual savings bank, on the one hand, by preparing a credit transaction agreement with Defendant 1’s joint and several sureties in relation to the above loans, and on the other hand, on the other hand, a false credit transaction agreement without stating a joint and several sureties was made

7) The objective materials consistent with Defendant 1’s assertion that Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 provided and received advisory fees of KRW 60 million after deducting the purchase price of the above land from Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 are not entirely confirmed.

8) In addition to the above circumstances, the possibility of a general false confession was examined. In this case, the defendant 3 was indicted for having received money and valuables in this part and suspected of false loan related thereto. The defendant 1 was investigated into several cases, including embezzlement and breach of trust, fabrication of evidence, and provision of other money and valuables, in addition to this part of money and valuables provided.

In light of the structure of the above case and the relationship between the defendant 3 and the defendant 1, a relatively minor confession of some of the facts charged is relatively minor, and thus, the concern that the defendant 1 would gain unjust profits in the course of investigation or trial is mainly raised to the donor in the same situation as the defendant 1, and there is no motive to make such a false confession to the above defendant 3.

3. Conclusion

In full view of the contents of Defendant 3’s statement and the above circumstances, Defendant 1 is sufficiently recognized as having given money and valuables to Defendant 3’s officers in relation to the loan examination duty.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s assertion disputing this cannot be accepted.

【2010Gohap1681】

1. The defendants 1 and 2's assertion about the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust)

The reason for a financial institution’s loan that exceeds the limit on loans to the same person does not constitute a crime of breach of trust. The instant loan is a loan made within the scope of secured value after evaluating the normally secured value in mind of the possibility of development as a unit house of the land in Pyeongtaek-dong Busan Special Metropolitan City (number 2 omitted), and thus, it does not constitute a crime of breach of trust.

Furthermore, Defendant 2 did not actually intervene in the above lending act, and Defendant 1 did not actively participate in the lending act through Defendant 2.

2. Legal doctrine

The provision on the restriction on lending limit to the same person of community credit cooperatives is prepared for the proper operation of community credit cooperatives themselves, and it does not directly take into account the possibility of recovery of loan claims, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a risk of not immediately recovering loan claims. Therefore, even if a person violates the former community credit cooperatives by lending loans in excess of the lending limit to the same person, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be said that a crime of occupational breach of trust is established unless there is a special reason. Generally, in light of the financial status of a debtor of loans at the time of lending, the overall financial transaction situation including loans from other financial institutions, loans from other financial institutions, and other debts, the current status of business and prospects, the purpose of lending, the required period of lending, etc., in light of the above, if it is judged that there is a problem in collecting loan claims due to the lack of debt repayment ability or the economic value of the collateral provided, it shall be deemed that an occupational breach of trust has occurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Do4876, Jun. 19, 2008).

Furthermore, in relation to the intention of the crime of occupational breach of trust, if the employees of a financial institution continued to make a loan without taking reasonable and reasonable measures such as being provided with sufficient security to ensure the recovery of loan claims in making the loan, it cannot be deemed that there was no awareness that the employees of the financial institution obtained property benefits from a third party and inflict damages on the financial institution (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3516, Oct. 10, 2003, etc.).

Meanwhile, in the event that the crime of occupational breach of trust is established through an insolvent loan, only the amount loaned in excess of the value of the collateral or the amount actually impossible to recover is not deemed as the amount of damage, and it shall be deemed that the total amount of the loan, which is likely to cause the impossibility of exercising property rights or to cause damage, is the amount of damage (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do28, Mar. 24, 200, etc.).

3. Issues of this part

This part of the facts charged, Defendant 1 and 2’s assertion in light of the above legal principles, and ultimately, the issues of this part are as follows: (i) whether the land was highly secured at the time of lending the loan; (ii) whether the land was highly secured at the time of lending; and (iii) whether Defendant 1 and 2 were recognized as having been involved in the instant crime.

4. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence presented in the summary of the evidence in the case 2010 high-liability 1681.

① The land category is a cemetery. In general, in order to change the land category from a cemetery to a site, it should be less than 51 per cent of the full-time capital of the land. The full-time capital of the full-time capital of the land (number 2 omitted) is 130 per cent of the total-time capital of the land. The full-time capital of the full-time capital of the land (number 2 omitted) in Pyeongtaek-dong, the full-time capital of the full-time capital of the land was 10.24% around 1998 and around 75.5% around April 2007.

On the other hand, with respect to the land (number 2 omitted) in Pyeongtaek-dong, the application was rejected on the ground that there was an application for changing the form and quality of the land at one time around 1998, but the project was high.

② A certified public appraiser belonging to the appraisal corporation around September 26, 2003 for the land in Pyeongtaek-dong (number 2 omitted) indicated in the appraisal report that the appraised value of the land was KRW 3344,440,00. As to the shape and use of the land, the appraisal report states that “the land was an illegal slope compared to the adjoining land, and is currently a cemetery and forest,” and there is no mentioning the possibility of changing the form and quality of the land. In addition, the said appraisal report is accompanied by photographs which have taken the front and surrounding environment, and according to such photographs, there is a large number of trees on the land.

③ The ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of Nonindicted 35, 17, and 88 of February 13, 2004 with respect to Pyeongtaekdong land for which Nonindicted 86 and Nonindicted 87 owned 1/2 shares on the first time. On the same day, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of Nonindicted 35, 17, and 88 on February 13, 2004. After the completion of the ownership transfer registration, the right to collateral security (the creditor, Nonindicted 2 Mutual Savings Bank, and the debtor, Nonindicted 35) with respect to the entire land was completed.

④ On March 11, 2004, the Jongno-gu Administrator accused Nonindicted 35 and Nonindicted 89 as “the fact that he cuts trees without permission from the land (number 2 omitted) in Pyeongtaek-dong, Pyeongtaek-dong, Seoul.” On March 12, 2004, the Jongno-gu Administrator carried out the procedure to specify the facts of illegally damaged standing timber, etc. on the land use plan as “the fact that he cuts trees without permission from the land (number 2 omitted)” and, around March 12, 2004, according to the land use plan confirmation pursuant to the relevant laws and subordinate statutes (hereinafter “accidentd state”). According to the relevant laws and regulations, it is impossible to change the form and quality of the land to the land specified as an accidented forest until the relevant specification is cancelled, and in the case of illegally damaged standing timber, the grace period for planting standing timber shall be granted for at least three years after planting.

Even after the Jongno-gu Office, on July 5, 2004, filed a second accusation against Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 89 on the said land once again on the fact that he sawd trees from the said land, and Nonindicted 90 was sentenced by the Seoul Central District Court to be guilty of violating the Forestry Act, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

⑤ Around April 2004, Defendant 1 applied for a loan secured by the said land to Nonindicted 2 Mutual Savings Bank under the name of Nonindicted 4. Accordingly, around April 27, 2004, Nonindicted 46, who is an employee of Nonindicted 2 Mutual Savings Bank’s business division, prepared a local response report on the said land. The above local response report contains 60% of the current ordinary land (number 2 omitted), and the standard for granting permission to change the form and quality of the land is 50%, but it seems possible to change the form and quality of the land because it would be possible to kill the above land. In addition, with regard to the value of the above land, Nonindicted 1.5 million won per ordinary forest, and the market value of the said land at KRW 8.6 billion per normal change in the form and quality of the forest (calculated as KRW 3 million per square, KRW 3.00,000,000 per square, KRW 200,000 per square, KRW 208.28.28.

④ On April 30, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of Nonindicted 4 on the said land (138). On the same day, the said three days were revoked, and the mortgage amount of KRW 7,350,000 (the creditor, Nonindicted 2 Mutual Savings Bank, the debtor, and Nonindicted 4) was newly established, and the loan of KRW 3 billion was made as security (hereinafter “the first loan”).

④ Around July 2005, Defendant 1 again applied for the loan of Nonindicted 4 as collateral on the said land. Upon Defendant 2’s request, Defendant 2 instructed Nonindicted 22, who is an employee of the business division, to set the loan amount of KRW 2 billion, and Nonindicted 22 drafted a draft review on July 14, 2005.

The draft of the review panel, prepared at the time, states that “it is possible to change the form and quality” and “the survey price of KRW 8.592 million” as the same as the draft of the on-site response report as of April 27, 2004 and the draft of the review body as of April 27, 2004 and the first loan.

As to the present situation, Nonindicted 22 thought, in this court, “generally, in the case of a loan against security, the appraisal price and the field survey price are deemed to be the standard for appraisal, and there is also a case of a loan at the site,” and “The appraisal by the appraisal report of September 26, 2003 was unable to proceed with the loan of KRW 3.3 billion. In other words, since the appraisal is a cemetery, Nonindicted 2 thought that the loan would not be more than 3.3 billion won. However, Defendant 2 instructed the loan, and prepared a draft review report at the survey price through the local answer company in order to make the loan possible,” “Defendant 2’s instruction was received to have the loan known at the time of land category change or visit the site, and prepared a draft review report by Defendant 1 only or at the site, and Defendant 1 was recorded as the primary debtor, and the ratio of Nonindicted 4 stated in the letter of credit transaction to the effect that the loan would not be more than 4.0 billion won in addition to the last letter of credit transaction order.”

On July 14, 2005, the loan was approved by the examination division prepared by Nonindicted 22 on the basis of the following day. A loan of KRW 2 billion was made as security on July 15, 2005 (hereinafter “second loan”). Accordingly, the loan principal secured by the above land became a total of KRW 5 billion. At the time, Nonindicted 2 mutual savings bank was in excess of the limit of the same person’s loan. At the time, Nonindicted 2 bank was in a situation where the amount of the loan to Defendant 1 exceeds the limit of the loan to Defendant 1, in order not to clarify that it is Defendant 1’s loan in the process of the prosecutor’s inspection of the Financial Supervisory Service, Defendant 1 conducted the loan by preparing and keeping a credit transaction agreement that is not entered by the joint and several sureties separately from the actual credit transaction agreement written by Defendant 1 as joint and several sureties. At this time, Nonindicted 23 and Nonindicted 22 approved both the credit transaction agreement with Defendant 2 at the time, and made and confirmed a false credit transaction agreement in the above way).

④ Nonindicted 22 received KRW 20 million as a check from Defendant 2 on or around December 2005, and Nonindicted 23, who is an employee of the same affiliated company, received KRW 10 million as the check. As to the present situation, Nonindicted 22 and Nonindicted 23 stated in this court that “Defendant 2 was said to have given Defendant 1 because he had no economic power to reduce the above amount,” and that “Defendant 2 was said to have given Defendant 1 the said amount.” On the last day of December 143, 2005, the said checks were found to have been withdrawn by Defendant 1 at the bank transaction place of ○○ Group.”

④ Around April 2006, Defendant 1 applied for a loan again in the name of Nonindicted 4 as collateral on the said land. Nonindicted 22 made a draft review by Defendant 2’s order as of April 24, 2006, the document security column stated that the survey price of the said land was “8.59 billion won at the time of the second loan.” However, the document security column stated that “10 million won at the port level” was “10.6 billion won at the site level of the land site in Pyeongtaek-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, and “The graveyard is scheduled to change its land category and make additional registration.” As seen in the above review book, the document was attached to the “forest-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-do- its original state.”

As to the developments in which the above draft review report was prepared at the time, Nonindicted 22 stated, in this court, that “Defendant 1 was passed by the ordinance allowing the development of the original housing site, and the said land constitutes the original housing site.” However, according to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s municipal ordinance, only confirmation was made, and the municipal ordinance was not confirmed as to whether it constitutes the said land (applicable).” “No knowing what is the definition of the original housing site is the original housing site,” “Defendant 1’s horse was recorded in the report, and it was good for Defendant 1 to prepare the draft review report, and he did not go to the site.” “Defendant 1 was investigated by the prosecution in relation to a punishment item,” “Defendant 1 was not present at the site and did not go to the site.” However, according to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s municipal ordinance, the original housing site does not fall under the category of “land which was limited to the construction of green areas to be sold at the beginning, but it did not fall under the category 148).”

On May 11, 2006, a loan was approved by the above review division, and a loan was made by adding 2 billion won to the above land as collateral (hereinafter “third loan”). Accordingly, the loan principal secured by the above land became a total of 8 billion won. The third loan was made in a manner that prepares a false credit transaction agreement as seen in the above 7th loan.

9. June 8, 2006, the head of Jongno-gu Office cancelled the designation of the said land as an accident forest.

(10) Around September 2006, Defendant 1 again applied for a loan again in the name of Nonindicted 4 as collateral. Accordingly, Nonindicted 23 prepared the proposal of the review division as of September 8, 2006. The collateral security column for the above documents included “8.59 billion won” as the survey price of the above land still at the time of the second loan. However, in the column for handling opinions, it is stated that “the land price of the above land is at least seven billion won per square meter of the site in the current and Seo Chang-dong-dong-dong-dong-style-dong-style-style-style-style-style-style-style-style-style-style-style-style-style-style-style-style-style-style-old-style-style-old-style-old-style-old-style-style-old-style-old-style-type-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based--------------------------.

On September 19, 2006, a loan was approved by the above review division, and a loan was additionally granted in an additional amount of KRW 2 billion to the above land as collateral (hereinafter “fourth loan”). Accordingly, the total sum of the total principal of the loan secured by land became KRW 10 billion. The fourth loan was made in a manner that prepares and establishes a false credit transaction agreement as seen in the above 7.

Meanwhile, Defendant 1 offered KRW 200 million out of the above loans to Defendant 2 in relation to the above loan business on the following day is as seen in the part of the case of Articles 2 and 2 of the judgment of 2010Gohap1598 and the "judgment on Defendant 1, 2 and defense counsel's assertion".

① In the process of granting loans more than four times, the Credit Review Committee did not hold the loans normally, and Defendant 2 was granted the loans by either telephone to the members or by allowing Nonindicted 83, who is an employee of the business division, to obtain approval individually.

(12) After that, Defendant 1 was in arrears with the repayment of the principal and interest of loans secured by the said land for a long period, and Nonindicted 64, the manager of the management team of Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank, and Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank filed an application for auction by exercising the security right to the said land on or around 2009. At that auction procedure, the appraised price of the said land was assessed as KRW 7.65 billion and KRW 151 per week).

5. Determination

① Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts and evidence revealed in the following evidence: (a) at the time of the second, third, and fourth loans, the value of land collateral at Pyeongtaek-dong (number 2 omitted) was below the total amount of loans at each time of loans; (b) was aware that the bank loan manager, including Defendant 2, suffered damage to Nonindicted Savings Bank 2; and (c) was sufficiently recognized that Defendant 2 and 1 participated in the act of breach of trust due to the said insolvent loans.

(1) The collateral value of the land above shall be deemed as at the time of the second and third loans.

First of all, the survey price of the above land stated in the local answer report dated April 27, 2004, i) was made after 7 months from September 26, 2003, which was conducted by the specialized appraisal and assessment institution, but the survey price exceeds 2.5 times from the pre-determined appraisal value, ii) the calculation of the above survey price is premised on the possibility of changing the form and quality of the land as the site. However, in light of the fact that the above land had already been stated as the accident land around March 2004 and the change of the form and quality was restricted by law for several years, it is determined that the actual value is different.

Furthermore, since the land was specified as a land involved in an accident after June 8, 2006, all development activities, including the change of the land category, are restricted until the cancellation of the specification, and therefore, it appears that there was no circumstance to cause an increase in the land price, and ii) the appraisal on September 26, 2003 was conducted at a price considerably lower than the officially announced land price affected by the overall land price in the surrounding area, taking into account the characteristics that the land category of the above land was a graveyard. Ultimately, the secured value of the above land at the time of the second loan on July 15, 2005 and at the time of the third loan on May 11, 2006, at the most adjacent appraised value as a result of the appraisal on September 26, 2003, which is the most adjacent appraised value.

Therefore, as long as the total amount of loans secured by the above land due to the second loan leads to KRW 5 billion, the above 2 and 3 loans are deemed to be an insolvent loan for which sufficient security has not been secured.

(2) Next, concerning the collateral value of the land above at the time of the fourth loan shall be deemed as follows.

At the time of the fourth loan, since the specification of the land involved in the above land has already been cancelled, it can be said that the land price has been partially increased due to the occurrence of potential of development when compared with the third loan that was legally impossible.

However, in full view of the circumstances such as the appraisal price of the above land was KRW 7.65 billion at the court auction procedure around 2009 after the cancellation of the specification of the land involved, and Nonindicted 63, Nonindicted 2’s employees in the management team of the mutual savings bank, made a statement in this court, the following facts are sufficiently acknowledged: (a) the real value of the above land at the time of the fourth loan does not reach KRW 10 billion,00,000,000; and (b) Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 63, an employee in the management team of the mutual savings bank, did not have any transaction cases with respect to neighboring forests or graveyards as of around 201; (c

③ At the time of the above 2, 3, and 4 loans, whether the above loans were perceived as bad loans by Defendant 2 and other banking personnel, and whether Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 participated in the act of bad loans.

The following facts revealed: (i) Nonindicted Party 2’s request for the examination of the first loan that was kept by Nonindicted Party 2 at the time, stating that “for change of the form and quality, Nonindicted Party 2 should lower the full number of standing timber water for the foregoing land; and (ii) Nonindicted Party 22, who is a person in charge of the second loan, has already been aware of both the appraisal by the specialized appraisal institution and the local answer report; (ii) the fact that the local answer report was not prepared for 10 months after the first loan, which was prepared, did not change the form and quality of the land for 10 months; (iii) Nonindicted Party 22, who did not obtain a new order for the examination of the loan and the on-site appraisal by Nonindicted Party 2; and (iv) Nonindicted Party 22, who did not obtain a new order for the examination of the loan of this case, was also able to obtain a new report on the loan of this case, without considering whether the loan and the on-site appraisal were made at least 70 million won.”

6. Conclusion

As above, it is recognized that Defendant 2 committed each breach of trust by causing property damage of KRW 2 billion at the time of the second loan, KRW 3 billion at the time of the third loan, and KRW 2 billion at the time of the fourth loan, on three occasions to the mutual savings bank of the victim non-indicted 2, and Defendant 1 who requested such non-performing loan is also in a competitive relationship with Defendant 2.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant 1 and 2 disputing this cannot be accepted.

1. Defendant 1

【Scope of Penalty Surcharge】

From 5 years to 22 years of imprisonment;

【Determination of Punishment】

- The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation

: Embezzlement/Misappropriation crime group, Type 5 (at least 30 billion won)

-Evidence of Evidence and Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Capital Increase)

: Offenses whose sentencing criteria are not set;

【Special Convictd Person of Embezzlement/Misappropriation】

Aggravations: In case of a very poor criminal law 155

Reduction element: None

[Scope of Recommendation on Embezzlement and Breach of Trust]

From 7 years to 11 years of imprisonment (aggravating the types of crimes of embezzlement and breach of trust)

【Scope of Recommendations as to Embezzlement and Breach of Trust】

From 4 years to 11 years from 4 years to 11 years (as the case where the sum of the amount of profit in embezzlement and breach of trust among the methods of adding the amount of profit in the same kind of concurrent crimes, among the methods of adding the amount of profit in embezzlement and breach of trust, the lower limit of the scope of punishment shall be reduced by 156 a week).

【Determination of Sentence】

5 years of imprisonment;

The amount of profit from the crime of embezzlement and breach of trust exceeds 44.3 billion won. The crime of embezzlement and breach of trust of this case does not simply comply with the accounting standards in the course of the fund movement between affiliated companies of the group, but rather reaches a large amount of loans from financial institutions under the name of affiliated companies, subordinate companies, relatives, etc., and continuously repaid the company and representative director's individual obligations for several years as loans, and extended the debt in the form of so-called return by soliciting a new loan as the debts and the representative director's individual obligations continue to increase. Defendant 1 provided a large amount of money and valuables to Defendant 2 and 3, an executive officer of the financial institution, and Defendant 1 provided a large amount of money and valuables to Defendant 2 and 3, who is the executive officer of the financial institution. As such, Defendant 1 did not take account of a large amount of money and valuables in the process of managing the company's assets in the process of purchasing the company's funds under the name of an affiliated company or an affiliated company's company's financial profits for a certain period of time.

Since Defendant 1 paid part of the existing debt of another affiliate in the course of the above crime, Defendant 1 did not actually acquire all the amount of profit of embezzlement and breach of trust legally recognized in the process of the above crime, and Defendant 2’s mutual savings bank acquired part of the security during the loan. As such, Defendant 1 expressed that the total amount of outstanding loan is not the final amount of damage of Nonindicted 2 mutual savings bank, Defendant 1’s mortgage established on the real estate owned by Nonindicted 3 for personal debt security is cancelled later, Defendant 1 expressed his intention to make efforts to normalize the management of the group until now, and Defendant 1 does not have any previous obligation.

In addition, the above sentencing conditions shall be determined in consideration of the age, character and conduct, circumstances after the crime, etc. of Defendant 1.

2. Defendant 2

【Scope of Penalty Surcharge】

From 3 years to 22 years of imprisonment;

【Determination of Punishment】

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

: Embezzlement/Misappropriation crime group, Type 4 (at least 5 billion won, less than 30 billion won);

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

: Offenses whose sentencing criteria are not set;

【Special Convictd Person of Embezzlement/Misappropriation】

Aggravations: In case of a very poor criminal law 159

Reduction element: None

[Scope of Recommendation on Embezzlement and Breach of Trust]

From 5 years to 8 years of imprisonment (the aggravated area of Type 4 of Embezzlement/Misappropriation)

【Determination of Sentence】

5 years of imprisonment;

Defendant 2’s personal consumption of all the profits earned from the above embezzlement 3.5 billion won, among which, at least 2.4 billion won was not recovered until this day, Defendant 2 did not have any amount of money or valuables received in relation to the duties of financial institutions. The amount of money or valuables received by Defendant 2 in relation to the duties of financial institutions is large, and Defendant 2 extended a large number of loans by abnormal methods, such as violation of the same person’s lending limit in relation to Defendant 1 during the period in which Defendant 2 managed the loan business in the business division of Nonindicted Bank 2’s mutual savings bank, and Defendant 2 did not recover the above loans normally and thereby suffered loss of a million won as seen earlier.

Defendant 2 returned part of the profits he acquired through the above embezzlement, and Defendant 2 did not have any same criminal record, as a favorable sentencing condition.

In addition, the sentencing conditions of Defendant 2, such as the age, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as per the order.

3. Defendant 3

【Scope of Penalty Surcharge】

Imprisonment for not more than five years;

【Determination of Sentence】

Two years of imprisonment and four years of suspended execution;

The value of the real estate received by Defendant 3 is not so many, and the above amount of the loan that Defendant 3 received and approved by Defendant 3 is a large amount of money, etc. is subject to an unfavorable sentencing condition.

The real estate given and received by Defendant 3 appears to have been preserved for forfeiture and to have been recovered in substance, there is no evidence to deem that Defendant 3 actually committed any breach of trust against Nonindicted Savings Bank 2 before or after the receipt of money and valuables, Defendant 3 did not have any criminal record of the same kind, Defendant 3 did not have any criminal record of the same kind, and Defendant 3 is against the law.

In addition, the sentencing conditions of Defendant 3, such as age, character and conduct, circumstances after crimes, etc., shall be determined as per the order.

1. Paragraph (6) [Attachment 2] Nos. 9, 10, and 20 of the facts charged in the case of 2010Gohap1500;

(a) Attached 2. 2. Serial 9-23,035,680 won

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1 embezzled the above money by using it as the operating fund of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) as stated in the above sight table No. 9.

(2) Determination

Each week 161) According to the account transaction statement and the receipt of the electric utility fee claim and the note 162, it is recognized that Korea Electric Power claims KRW 23,035,180,000 to Nonindicted Company 11 around September 2006, and that the amount was transferred from the account of the National Agricultural Cooperative (Account Number 2 omitted) in the name of Nonindicted Company 11 and around November 30, 2006 to KRW 23,035,680 to the account in the name of Korea Electric Power Corporation around November 17, 206. In light of the above transferred amount, it appears that the above amount was paid to Nonindicted Company 11 for the payment of the electric utility fee imposed on Nonindicted Company 23,035,680 on September 206. Therefore, it is recognized that Nonindicted Company 11 was used for the money.

B. Attached 2. Serial 10-35,461,098 won

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1 embezzled the above money by using it as the operating fund of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), such as the list 10 Nos. 10 of the above sight table.

(2) Determination

각 주164) 계좌거래내역서 와 각 주165) 세금계산서 에 의하면, ▼▼주유소가 공소외 11 회사에게 2006. 9. 30.경 43,299,906원 상당의 연료유, 2006. 10. 31.경 30,461,098원 상당의 경유를 각 공급한 사실, 공소외 11 회사의 대출금 중 47억 5,000만 원이 입금되어 있던 공소외 11 회사 명의의 농협중앙회 계좌( 계좌번호 2 생략)에서 2006. 11. 30. 17:06경 ▼▼주유소 명의의 계좌로 35,461,098원이 이체된 사실이 인정되는바, 위 연료유 및 경유가 공급된 시점과 금원이 이체된 시점이 근접한 점 및 그 금액 등에 비추어 보면 위 금원은 공소외 11 회사의 ▼▼주유소에 대한 경유대금 채무 중 일부의 변제를 위하여 지급된 것으로 보인다.

Therefore, KRW 35,461,098 is recognized as money used for Nonindicted Company 11.

(c) Appendix 2. Serial 20-10 million won

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1 embezzled the above money by personal use, such as the list Nos. 20 of the above sight table.

(2) Determination

각 주166) 계좌거래내역서 와 각 주167) 세금계산서 에 의하면, 공소외 92가 운영하는 ⊙⊙화공이라는 업체가 공소외 11 회사에게 2006. 9. 22. 748만 원 상당의 응집제를, 2006. 10. 26. 935만 원 상당의 응집제를 각 공급한 사실, 공소외 11 회사의 대출금 중 35억 원이 입금되어 있던 공소외 11 회사 명의의 농협중앙회 계좌( 계좌번호 2 생략)에서 2006. 12. 9. 16:03경 ⊙⊙화공( 공소외 92) 명의의 계좌로 1,000만 원이 이체된 사실이 인정되는바, 응집제가 공급된 시점과 금원이 이체된 시점이 근접한 점 및 그 금액, 공소외 33의 이 법정에서의 주168) 진술 등에 비추어 보면 위 금원은 공소외 11 회사의 ⊙⊙화공에 대한 응집제대금 채무 중 일부의 변제를 위하여 지급된 것으로 보인다.

Therefore, KRW 10 million is recognized as money used for Nonindicted Company 11.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, each part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof, and thus the innocence should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the part of Article 6 of the facts charged in the case of comprehensive crime is found guilty of the violation of Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) due to the violation of Article 3 (1) 1 of the Aggravated Punishment,

2. The fact that Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes was violated by issuing a promissory note of the non-indicted 1 (non-indicted 15) as stated in Article 8. A of the facts charged in the case of 2010 Gohap1500, which is in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment,

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1, in collusion with Nonindicted Co. 43’s representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1 (Nonindicted Co. 15) in the manner as set forth in Article 8-A(a) of the judgment on the facts constituting the crime of the case of 2010Gohap1500, in collusion with Defendant 1’s representative director, and offered to Nonindicted Co. 14 of the promissory note of Nonindicted Co. 1 (Nonindicted Co. 15) by issuing KRW 525 million and providing it to Nonindicted Co. 14, thereby causing damage equivalent to the above amount.

B. Determination of the amount of profit as a result of the crime in this part

Defendant 1, in collusion with Nonindicted Co. 43 on November 30, 2007, issued a promissory note for the payment of personal debts by Nonindicted Co. 1 (Nonindicted Co. 15). However, according to Nonindicted Co. 53’s statement at the prosecutor’s office, confirmation confirmation of Nonindicted Co. 43 and a copy of a promissory note, Nonindicted Co. 169), it can be recognized that Nonindicted Co. 43 issued a promissory note with Defendant 1’s order at the time of the occurrence of the crime, with a face value of KRW 3.355 billion at the time of the occurrence of the crime of breach of trust, but with a face value of KRW 5.5 billion at the time of the subsequent May 7, 2009, the amount of which is KRW 5.5 billion at the time of the occurrence of the crime of breach of trust, aside from the point of time of the occurrence of the crime of KRW 1’s property profits and the amount of damages incurred by Nonindicted Co. 15.3 billion at the time of the crime of trust.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the facts charged about the violation of Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes fall under the case where there is no proof, and thus, the defendant should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the defendant is found guilty as being guilty pursuant to Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which is included within the scope, it shall not be sentenced separately from the disposition of the court.

3. The point of violation of Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) is the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) that the real estate of Nonindicted Co. 3 was offered as a security

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1, by way of the same method as set forth in Article 8-B(b) of the Criminal facts of the case of 2010 Gohap1500, Defendant 1, on April 27, 2009, set up and granting the secured debt amount of KRW 6 billion on the real estate owned by Nonindicted Co. 3 as security for personal debt against Nonindicted Co. 14 on April 27, 2009, the secured debt amounting to KRW 6 billion on the real estate owned by Nonindicted Co. 3, the debtor Nonindicted Co. 3, and Nonindicted

B. Determination of the amount of profit as a result of the crime in this part

If a crime of breach of trust is established due to an act of establishing a collateral on real estate owned by another person and causing damages to the owner, the amount of profit and amount of damages shall be equivalent to the secured value of the real estate acquired by the mortgagee by establishing the collateral security right. Thus, the amount of profit and amount of damages arising from the act of breach of trust in this case should be determined based on how much the value of the real estate owned by the said non-indicted 3 as of April 27, 200

However, the record of this case does not contain any data that can be calculated specifically for the value of the above real estate at the time of establishing the above collateral on April 27, 2009. However, according to the certified copy of the register of the above real estate, it can only be recognized that the above real estate had already been established prior priority over the maximum debt amount of 44.9 billion won at the time.

Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the amount of profit caused by this part of the crime is five billion won or more.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the facts charged about the violation of Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes fall under a case where there is no proof, and thus, the verdict of innocence should be made pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty as the crime of occupational breach of trust in the Criminal Act included within the scope, it shall not be judged separately in the disposition of not guilty.

4. The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) that a victim non-indicted 2 mutual savings bank violated Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes by granting a loan of KRW 10 billion from the victim non-indicted 2 mutual savings bank among the charges

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired with each other, while taking overall charge of the loan business of the mutual savings bank of Nonindicted 2, in violation of their official duties, and Defendant 2 sustained the above KRW 10 billion on April 30, 2004, KRW 3 billion on April 30, 2004, KRW 2 billion on July 15, 2005, KRW 3 billion on May 11, 2006, and KRW 10 billion on September 19, 2006, from Defendant 1 to gain pecuniary advantage equivalent to the above KRW 10 billion on September 2, 2006, and suffered loss equivalent to the same amount as the victim Nonindicted 2.

B. Determination of the amount of profit as a result of the crime in this part

On the premise that this part of the facts charged is related to a comprehensive crime and constitutes a single crime of embezzlement, the prosecutor seems to have instituted a public prosecution by applying Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which corresponds to a case where the amount of embezzlement is at least five billion won.

However, in full view of the circumstances such as: (a) there is no evidence to support that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 planned to obtain all loans of KRW 10 billion from the beginning four times; (b) there is a time interval between at least four months to a maximum of 15 months; and (c) each time of the above loans, and (d) the examination division of the contents different from each time of the loans, and the approval for loans was made through separate procedures, it is difficult to deem that the above Defendants received the loans of the above four times under the single criminal intent.

Therefore, each of the lending acts in this part constitutes separate crimes, and there is no case where the amount of each of the loans is more than five billion won per time, and therefore, this part of the facts charged cannot be punished by applying Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the facts charged about the violation of Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes fall under the category of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of trust) and the verdict of innocence should be made pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the defendant is found guilty of the violation of Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of trust) which is included within the scope, it shall not be sentenced separately in the order

5. A violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) due to a loan of KRW 3 billion on April 30, 2004 among the facts charged in the case of 2010 Highest 1681;

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired, while taking overall charge of the loan business of the mutual savings bank of Nonindicted 2, in violation of their official duties, and Defendant 2 loaned KRW 3 billion to Defendant 1 on April 30, 2004 on the security of the land in the same manner as the facts constituting an offense in the case in which it was held on April 30, 2004 and thereby, suffered damage equivalent to the same amount as that of the mutual savings bank of the victim Nonindicted 2.

B. Issues of this part

As seen earlier, among the “decision on Defendant 1, 2, and defense counsel’s assertion,” Articles 2 and 3 of the part of the case No. 2010Dahap1681, supra, are insufficient simply to establish a crime of occupational breach of trust due to an insolvent loan, the fact that the loan officer merely violated the legal or occupational duties required, and further, it should be proven that the value of collateral security is not sufficient to secure the recovery of loans. Therefore, the issue of this part of the facts charged is whether the value of the land as security falls short of KRW 3 billion at the time of the loan on April 30, 204.

B. Determination

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, in particular, the real estate note 172, on which Nonindicted 17 entered as purchaser, and the statement of tax amount, as well as the acquisition tax return and the statement prepared by Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 174, Defendant 1 may recognize the fact that Defendant 1 purchased KRW 1/3 of the above land in the name of Nonindicted 17 around 2003, in KRW 1.2 billion. The fact that the current market price of the above land seems not to have been formed in itself is as seen in the above part of Paragraph 5 of Article 2010 of the "Judgment on the assertion by Defendant 1, 2, and defense counsel".

i) However, the above 1.2 billion won is merely the price for 1/3 of the above land. In fact, around February 13, 2004, at the time the registration of transfer of ownership to the whole land was completed in the name of Nonindicted 17, 35,883, a real estate acquisition tax return was filed on the premise that the total purchase price was 3.6 billion won, and ii) on September 26, 2003, there was an appraisal report which appraised the above land price of 3.344.4 billion won, regardless of the change of land form and quality around September 26, 2003. There is no evidence that the appraisal was conducted normally. iii) The mortgage was established on the above land, and there is no evidence that there was a real estate price of 4.3 billion won as at February 13, 2004 as at the time the mortgage was established, and there is no evidence that there were 1.4 billion won or more as at the time the collateral loan was established.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded that the collateral value of the land at the time of the first loan was not sufficient to recover KRW 3 billion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

C. Sub-committee

Thus, since each of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, it is decided to pronounce innocence under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

6. In the case of 2011 Highest 40: The occupation of the teacher who counterfeited evidence around September 2009 by Defendant 1.

A. Details of this part of the facts charged

On June 2009, Defendant 1 started an investigation into violation of the limit of loans by the same person in relation to Defendant 1’s relatives and the companies operated by Defendant 1, etc. from Nonindicted Bank 2’s mutual savings bank, and the relative relatives and the representative directors of each related company were summoned and investigated by the prosecutor, and began to arrange data on the person who requested the vindication of the use of each loan.

On March 29, 2006, Defendant 1 took out a loan of KRW 8 billion from Nonindicted Co. 2’s mutual savings bank as the borrower and agreed to the effect that Defendant 1 repaid the loan of KRW 7 billion on the pretext of the loan.

From October 209, when the investigation was initiated on the embezzlement of the corporate operating funds that Defendant 1 borrowed from Nonindicted Co. 2’s mutual savings bank, from January 2010, Defendant 1 instructed the Nonindicted Co. 3’s representative director at the time of Nonindicted Co. 3 to arrange the place of use of the said KRW 7 billion and to arrange the repayment of the said amount. On July 2010, Defendant 1 instructed the Korean Film Association’s written appraisal of the said three points of art works to Nonindicted Co. 10, while Defendant 1 and Defendant 7’s shares of Nonindicted Co. 3 as loans to Nonindicted Co. 3.

On September 12, 2010, Nonindicted 10, upon receipt of such an order, prepared “the share acquisition agreement on July 12, 2010,” with the intent to offset the Defendant’s and Nonindicted 7’s debt to Nonindicted 3 by settling each obligation and obligation of Defendant 1, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), and Nonindicted 3’s shares of Nonindicted Company 3, which were owned by Defendant 1, Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 7, and reported it to the Defendant, and the Defendant directed the Defendant to prepare more simple contents.

Around that time, Nonindicted 10 again revised the content, “A share acquisition agreement as of July 12, 2010,” and reported it to Defendant 1, but the Defendant instructed the date of preparation to be “the January 20, 2010,” and Nonindicted 10 instructed Defendant 10 to leave the office of Mapo-gu Seoul Macdong (hereinafter omitted) to be “the share acquisition agreement as of January 20, 201” from the office of Mapo-gu Seoul Macdong (hereinafter omitted), to be “the share acquisition agreement as of January 20, 201,” and to be approved by Defendant 1.

around October 2010, Defendant 1 delivered to his defense counsel a “written agreement on acquisition of shares as of January 20, 2010” and Defendant 1’s defense counsel, who is unaware of such circumstances, submitted to his defense counsel the “written agreement on acquisition of shares” prepared under the aforementioned circumstances to the judge in charge of questioning the accused prior to detention on October 27, 2010, accompanied by his defense counsel’s written opinion, and used the “written agreement on acquisition of shares” as of October 18.

As a result, Defendant 1 instigated Nonindicted 10 to forge evidence by having Nonindicted 10 prepare the aforementioned false contract to use it as evidence for the investigation of another person's criminal case.

B. Determination

(1) The admissibility of some of the evidence as shown in the facts charged

Among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the written statement 179, which was prepared by Non-Indicted 10, is prepared in or in substance during the investigation process, and is the same as the suspect interrogation protocol. There is no evidence to acknowledge that Non-Indicted 10 was notified of the right to refuse to make a statement before preparing the written statement. Thus, it is not admissible as evidence illegally collected (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8213, Aug. 20, 2009, etc.).

(2) Determination of facts charged

The conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006, etc.).

Of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, the remaining evidence excluding the evidence as mentioned in the above (1) is examined and reported to the prosecutor 2, i.e., the second interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 10, and each week 180). According to each sales contract and each sales contract, Nonindicted 10 instructed the prosecutor 2 to arrange the obligations of Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 3 in the second interrogation process, around October 2009, Defendant 1 was not properly processed, and it was assumed that Defendant 1 was not yet processed from Defendant 1 to the prosecutor 20, and that Defendant 2 stated that Defendant 1 was to be removed from the prosecutor’s office 80,000 No. 10,000, and that Defendant 1 was to be removed from the prosecutor’s office 20,000,000,000 No. 10,000,000,0000,000,0000).

Furthermore, in light of the fact that Nonindicted 10’s above prosecutorial statement is specific and detailed, and that there are some arguments consistent with Nonindicted 10’s above statement, it is highly doubtful that Nonindicted 10 did not prepare a share acquisition agreement on January 20, 2010 retroactively after receiving Defendant 1’s order on September 20, 2010.

However, in this court, Nonindicted 10, upon receiving the order from Defendant 1, written a share transfer contract several times between July 2010 and September 201, but did not retroactive the date of preparation as of January 20, 2010. Around July 2010, Nonindicted 10 received a document file request from Nonindicted 33 at the time of receipt of the first order from Defendant 1. The date of preparation was as of January 20, 2010. After the prosecutor’s investigation, Nonindicted 33 told that he had made a share transfer contract by printing out the said file from the prosecutor’s office. However, it reversed the previous prosecutor’s statement to the effect that “The above file was made as of January 20, 2010.” The date of preparation was as of January 20, 2010.

In addition, unlike Non-Indicted 10's prosecutor's statement that Non-Indicted 10 submitted at the time of the investigation into the prosecution, it is not found that Non-Indicted 10's work was conducted on September 2010 in the document files of the stock acquisition agreement to the above Nompt North Korea. However, it was found that the document files were transferred to the above Nompt by the mobile storage device around November 28, 2010 when the investigation into this part was conducted, and it was found that the document files were stored to the above Nompt North Korea by the mobile storage device around November 28, 2010, and the stock acquisition agreement of Jan. 20, 2010 and the stock acquisition agreement of Jan. 20, 2010 were different.

Furthermore, in this court, Nonindicted 3 instructed Defendant 1 to adjust the obligation and obligation of Nonindicted Company 3 and Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 7 at the New Yearialting around January 2010, and stored the data file of the stock acquisition contract in the outer cover. At the time, Nonindicted 3 printed out the data file and reported it to Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 43, and affixed the seal to the representative director, and the employees of Nonindicted 60 tax accountants’ office made a lot of securities transaction tax on the issue of funds to Defendant 1. As such, Nonindicted 1 reported on the issue of funds to Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 191, Nonindicted 3, at the time of Nonindicted 8’s issuance of the stock acquisition contract, sent the data file to Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 194, Nonindicted 2, at the time of Nonindicted 3’s issuance of the new shares to Nonindicted 3, 193, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 3, at the time of Nonindicted Company 8 (16).

In addition to the above evidence relation, in full view of the fact that Nonindicted 10 denied the crime before he was examined by the second prosecutor, it is difficult to believe that Nonindicted 10, the core evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case, as seen earlier, was the content of Nonindicted 10’s legal statement and the result of the restoration of the Nompt deleted file, etc. In addition, it is difficult for Nonindicted 33 and 43 to believe that Nonindicted 10 actually prepared the output of the share acquisition agreement on January 20, 2010, which is the transfer of business affairs related to the preparation of the share acquisition agreement, and the possibility that the documents submitted to the court were the share acquisition agreement.

Therefore, there is room for reasonable deliberation on this part of the facts charged, so it is difficult to view that there is no evidence to prove that there is a judge required in the criminal trial alone that seems to conform to the above facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C. Sub-committee

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, it is decided not to prosecute the defendant.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)

(1) All of the charges in this part of the indictment that stated in the indictment that “the defendant himself was the actual owner of the actual inspection of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and Nonindicted Company 25 (Nonindicted Company 24) decided to embezzled the funds of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) borrowed from Nonindicted Savings Bank 2 through window dressing accounting. The defendant, on January 25, 2006, stated that Nonindicted Company 28’s representative director of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) deposited KRW 1930 million in the cash of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) without paying the funds, and that the above entries in the indictment were not related to Nonindicted Company 25 (Nonindicted Company 16) and was not related to Nonindicted Company 25,000,000 won and was not related to Nonindicted Company 25,000,000 won and was not related to Nonindicted Company 25,000,000 won and paid the funds to Nonindicted Company 25,000 won.

Note 2) Attached 2. Prosecution Nos. 1 through 22 in total, KRW 9,975,550,126 in the list of crimes was prosecuted. However, as seen below in Paragraph 1 of the “not guilty portion”, Defendant not guilty of KRW 68,496,778 in total, 9,10,000 among them, as seen below in Paragraph 1 of the “not guilty portion”.

3) The indictment is written as “the statement of the number of units.” However, according to the relevant evidence, the securities issued at the time is clear that they are promissory notes, and whether they are promissory notes is a statement of the number of units does not cause any disadvantage to the defendant’s right of defense, even if they are acknowledged differently, since they are not elements affecting the gender of the instant crime or the sentencing of the instant crime. Thus, it does not result in any disadvantage to the defendant’s right of defense (the copies of promissory notes of 5834 pages 5834 of the investigation records of the instant case, and the prosecutor’s statement of 58

4) The indictment states that the amount of KRW 5.525 billion is the right of KRW 5.5 billion. On the premise that this part of the indictment is charged for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of trust) due to the violation of Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, but the indictment was instituted for the violation of Article 3(1)1 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust). However, as seen below, the face value of the promissorysory note is recognized as KRW 3.55 billion, and therefore, the amount of profit and the amount of loss caused by the crime are less than five billion. Thus, this part of the crime is recognized only as a violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) due to the violation of Article 3

Note 5) The indictment contains a maximum amount of KRW 600 million, but according to the investigation records in the case of 2010 Gohap1500, it is recognized that this is an obvious clerical error. Thus, it is corrected as above.

(6) The indictment states that “the amount of profit equivalent to 6 billion won” is “the amount of profit of Defendant 1 and the amount of loss of the victim non-indicted 3 is the same as the maximum debt amount or the amount of debt of the above non-indicted 6 billion, and thus, the prosecutor appears to have prosecuted the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the violation of Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation). However, as seen in paragraph (3) of the following, the above amount of profit and the amount of loss are equivalent to the value of the real estate infringed upon by the creation of the above right to collateral, and there is no evidence that it is more than 5 billion won, and there is no way to calculate

In the indictment of the case 2010 Gohap1598, Defendant 2 stated as follows: “Defendant 2 worked in the mutual savings bank from around 1983 to July 2007, and worked in the department of the division of the mutual savings bank 2 from around 2003 to around 2007 as the head of the division of the mutual savings bank 2 and the director treatment.” However, since the entire indictments in the case 2010 Gohap1681, which was the same as above, were modified as stated in the above facts of crime, the entire indictments in the case 2010 Gohap1598 are corrected as above.

Note 8) A certified copy of the real estate register 287 pages of the investigation records

9) The indictment stated as follows: “The above four-time loans were charged as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) from April 30, 2004 to September 19, 2006 by Defendant 1, at the mutual savings bank of Jongno-gu, Seoul, 467 square meters, which was provided as collateral by Nonindicted 2 Mutual Savings Bank 9,467 square meters, and was requested by Defendant 1 to lend an amount exceeding the effective collateral value by avoiding the provision prohibiting loans exceeding the limit for the same person, and made it difficult to recover the total amount of KRW 10 billion to Defendant 1. However, in the above four-time loans, the above four-time loans were charged as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), and the portion of the charge and the portion of acquittal on April 30, 2006, which was determined as valid by Defendant 201 and Defendant 401.208.

(10) In the indictment, Defendant 3 received nine parcels from Defendant 1 on November 28, 2006, including the land (number 30 omitted) in the Geum-dong, Geum-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is owned by Nonindicted 58, as a collateral, and violated the above duty and approved to lend KRW 10 billion to the above Nonindicted Company 11 on November 30, 2006, and make it difficult to recover it difficult. However, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 3 received an illegal solicitation that loans more amount than the appraised amount and the effective collateral value, and it does not constitute a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (number 30 omitted). Therefore, this part of the facts charged is modified to the extent necessary for the judgment of the above crime, and it is not recognized that there was a substantial change of the defendant's right to defense as stated in the indictment.

Note 11) It is calculated on the basis of the publicly announced market price at the time of 2006.

Note 12) The indictment also states “a loan of KRW 3 billion on April 30, 2004” but the indictment also states “a loan of KRW 3 billion on April 30, 2004.” However, as seen in paragraph 2 of the criminal facts of the case, and Paragraph 5 of the “not guilty portion”, this part is not found guilty.

13) The indictment states, “The total amount of Defendant 1’s loans exceeds 12.2 billion won on July 15, 2005, but additionally 2. billion won on May 11, 2006, even though the total amount of Defendant 1’s loans exceeds 3.6 billion won on May 11, 2006, additional 3. billion won, while the total amount of Defendant 1’s loans exceeds 8 billion won on September 19, 2006, the total amount of Defendant 1’s loans exceeds 1.2 billion won on more than 1.2 billion won on September 19, 2006, additional loans are provided.” However, as seen below, since the judgment on the assertion of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and defense counsel’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) constitutes insolvent loans, i.e., whether the above violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes constitutes an unlawful loan, and whether the above amount of collateral was actually executed within the same person’s worth.

Note 14) The indictment states, “In collusion, Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 acquired pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 10 billion and incurred losses equivalent to the same amount to the victim Nonindicted Savings Bank 2.” The prosecutor considers this part as a comprehensive crime, and stated this part of the applicable provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes as Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes. However, this part of the indictment as determined in Article 3(4) below is not a comprehensive crime but an actual concurrent crime.

Note 15) Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s written opinion No. 2 through 4 of November 25, 2010, and 2, 3 pages of the written argument submitted by the same defense counsel on May 4, 201

Note 16) Additional tax Map

Note 17) In the investigation records of the 2010 Gohap1500 case (hereinafter “decision on Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defense Counsel’s argument”), the statement “investigation records” without specifying the case in each share of the part of the 2010 Gohap1500 case refers to the investigation records of the 2010 Gohaphap1500 case (hereinafter “Investigation records of the 2010 Gohap1500 case”) 479 to 4801, and the list of each value-added tax return and tax invoice of the 4804 to 4843 pages.

Note 18) Investigation Record No. 6174, 6175 Prosecutor's Examination of Non-Indicted 4

Note 19) The three books of investigation records 439 pages, 4347 pages, each account transaction 4340, 4341, 4342, and 4346 pages each passbook transfer receipt and passbook transfer receipt.

Note 20) Investigation Record 6181, 6182 Prosecutor's Examination of Non-Indicted 4

Note 21) Investigation Record No. 6180, 6181 Prosecutor’s Examination of Non-Indicted 4

Note 22) The 4335 Statement of the Investigation Record

Note 23) The interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 4 by the prosecution as to the interrogation record of Nonindicted 6178

Note 24) Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s written opinion on November 25, 2010, 5, and 4 pages of the statement of defense counsel’s opinion submitted by the same defense counsel on May 4, 201

(25) Even if there was an agreement between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), as Defendant 1’s assertion, to vest the above stocks in Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), there is no difference in the aspect that Defendant 1 used the loans of Nonindicted Company 3 for a separate individual transferee who is a separate corporation under Defendant 1’s order, and thus, such circumstance does not affect the gender of the crime of embezzlement in this part.

Note 26) A statement of Nonindicted 6 at 589, the Prosecutor’s Office’s statement of the investigation record, the same 607 pages of the share transfer contract, and Nonindicted 6’s petition of the same 615 pages

Note 27) Statement of Change, etc. in Stocks of 872 pages, 4150 to 4180 pages of investigation records, and 4264 and 4278 Prosecutor's first interrogation protocol against Defendant 1

Note 28) A copy of the investigation record 3814 pages, the first prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant 1 of the same 4274

Note 29) The first protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 47 in the investigation record 4916, 4917, the first protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 47, the register of the register of the board of directors of 508, the statement of Nonindicted 27 in the 4953.

Note 30) The 9th written opinion of the defense counsel on November 25, 2010 submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel, and 5, 6th page of the oral argument submitted by the same defense counsel on May 4, 201

Note 31) The above six parcels are 187,03 square meters of forests and fields (number 3 omitted), 187,033 square meters of forests and fields (number 3 omitted), 7,851 square meters of forests and fields (number 4 omitted), 77,851 square meters of forests and fields (number 4 omitted), 2,241 square meters (number 8 omitted), 1,048 square meters (number 5 omitted), 1,048 square meters of forests and fields (number 5 omitted), 2,89 square meters of forests and fields (number 4 omitted), 7,889 square meters of forests and fields (number 4 omitted) in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number 8 omitted), 2,241 square meters (number 8 omitted) in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Note 32) Of the 6th trial records, the 11th trial records against Defendant 1, evidence list Nos. 93 and 93-1 through 93-39 submitted to Defendant 1’s defense counsel

Note 33) In the investigation records 3866 pages, “Non-Indicted 7’s 1.7 billion won loans to Non-Indicted 2’s mutual savings bank”, Defendant 1’s defense counsel 93

Note 34) The prosecutor’s statement of Nonindicted 7 of the 9th trial record with respect to Nonindicted 33, the 1 through 3, the 8 through 10, the 6210, and the 6211th trial record with respect to Defendant 1 among the 11st trial records.

35) In particular, as Non-Indicted 8 Company (Non-Indicted 16 Company), the scale of a corporation is small to 4 billion won in capital, 3 or 4 registered directors, and the actual-level relative is in charge of a company’s major position (the certified transcript of corporate register of 500 pages) and the decision of the fund execution of the corporation was made according to the individual representative director’s will, it is important not only to the circumstances after the purchase of land, but also to the circumstances at the time of the purchase of land.

Note 36) Nonindicted 3 stated in this Court that Nonindicted 3 was unaware of the ownership transfer registration in the name of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), and that Nonindicted 3 did not know of the remainder of the land other than the land in Taecheoncheon-do (number 3 omitted) in the 12th trial record (number 2, 3 in the 12th trial record).

In relation to the above 37) In this court, Non-Indicted 3 3 asked Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 34 at the time as to the reasons used to repay the loans under Non-Indicted 7 and the existence of evidentiary materials as to the existence of the loans under Non-Indicted 7, 5.7 billion won from October 23, 2007. However, Non-Indicted 34 stated that the above land made between Non-Indicted 8 (Non-Indicted 16) and Non-Indicted 7 was not known to the non-Indicted 34 at the time (the 12th trial record). Further, even in the prosecutorial investigation process, Non-Indicted 1 purchased the above land for investment purpose, Non-Indicted 7 and Non-Indicted 8 (Non-Indicted 16) purchased it from Non-Indicted 7 at the time, and Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 8 (Non-Indicted 16) made a statement to the effect that the above land was purchased from Non-Indicted 5.75 billion won.

Note 38) Of the 12th trial records, the chief commissioner of each account of the 1620, 1622 pages of the 7, 8, investigation records with respect to Nonindicted 33

Note 39) Answer to the request for cooperation in investigation records of 5564 (whether or not to permit quarrying/development)

40) However, the actual registration of ownership transfer was not completed due to the cancellation of the above sales contract (the investigation record No. 2894 of land transaction permission and the application for land transaction permission for the same 2914, 2915 of the investigation record).

Note 41) Forest land of 16,165 square meters in Sinju-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number 33 omitted), forest land of 4,066 square meters in Sinju-si (number 34 omitted), forest land of 33,025 square meters in Sinju-si (number 35 omitted), etc. (a statement of 1739 square meters in investigation records, each real estate sales contract of 2373,2374 pages, and each land transaction permission of 2894 square meters in Sinju-si).

Note 42) Article 119 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Article 9 of the Land Transaction Service Regulation (Direction of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs), the Investigation Report of 559 to 563 pages, and the related Acts and subordinate statutes

Note 43) President of the Account of 1621 of investigation records

Note 44) Four pages of the first trial record of witness examination of Nonindicted 34

Note 45) Five pages of the 12th trial record of the examination of witness against Nonindicted 33

In fact, in the accounting books of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), the above KRW 5.734 billion is indicated as “the purchase price for the land (number 3 omitted),” while the land sales contract written between Nonindicted Company 8 and Nonindicted Company 7 is indicated as the subject of sale and purchase (Evidence No. 34 of the evidence submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel). Furthermore, even if the above sales contract is in accordance with the above sales contract, there is still a problem that the purchase price is still inconsistent. In this regard, Nonindicted 34 stated in this court that Defendant 1, at the time, instructed Defendant 1 to sell only the remaining five parcels except for the above six parcels of land (number 8 omitted), and that the land sales contract written between Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 7 was written as the subject of sale and purchase (Article 1623 of the Investigation Record No. 1623, Nov. 14, 200).

Note 47) A subdivision of investigative records 1623

Note 48) President of the Account of 3783 of investigation records

Note 49) Chief Director of the Account of 3876 investigative records

Note 50) Chief Director of the Account of 3882 Investigation Records

Note 51) President of the Account of 3891 of investigation records

Note 52) The evidence list No. 93-18 submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel

Note 53) The evidence list No. 93-21 submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel

Note 54) Defendant 1’s defense counsel Nos. 93-24

Note 55) Evidence list Nos. 93-29 submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel

Note 56) The evidence list No. 93-29 submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel

Note 57) Ten (10) of the defense counsel’s written opinion submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel on November 25, 2010, seven (7) of the summary of the pleadings submitted by the same defense counsel on May 4, 2011, and two (2) of the reference documents submitted by the same defense counsel on May 6, 201

Note 58) Defendant 1’s defense counsel submitted on May 6, 201, the 3 pages of reference documents, and the 13, 14 pages of Defendant 1 among the 10th trial records.

Note 59) A report on the investigation conducted in 2,206, 2,208, and the status of landscape trees raised and raised in 2208

Note 60) A sale and purchase contract of three copies of investigation records 4182

Note 61) An investigation report of 4477 pages of investigation records

Note 62) Investigative Report 4456

In relation to this, Nonindicted 35 stated in this Court that Nonindicted 715 land in the above mine 715 was erroneously recorded in the sales contract, and that the trees subject to actual sales are trees planted in 725 land in the same Ri, but in fact, there is a question as to whether there is land with a lot number of 725 land in the same Ri (where an electronic inquiry was made on the perusal of registration information, such a lot number does not appear).

Note 64) Each land lease agreement of the 4455, 4456 pages for investigation records, the same 4471,4472

Note 65) On-site photographs bound in the 4474 pages of the investigation records

As to this, Nonindicted 35 made a statement to the effect that “Non-Indicted 35 carried trees of 812 Gu in the land above 209 to the scene of Non-Indicted 8,” on several occasions during the prosecutor’s investigation (the investigation record No. 4414, Non-Indicted 35, Non-Indicted 35, the first prosecutor’s office protocol against Non-Indicted 4429, and Non-Indicted 35, the same 4431, and the first prosecutor’s office protocol against Non-Indicted 4431). As seen earlier, it is difficult to believe the above statement in light of the following: (a) the trees which were originally in the above land do not exceed 100gs; and (b) there is no trees planted in the actual non-Indicted 8’s golf course after around

Note 67) The investigation report of the 5337 pages, on the 5341 to 5354

Note 68) The second prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 34 of the first prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 34, 709 and 5710 of the investigation records, the second prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 34 of the first prosecutor's protocol

Note 69) Nonindicted 35’s statement of the 4412 Investigation Record, Nonindicted 4431, and Nonindicted 35’s first prosecutor’s statement of the 4432 pages

Note 70) Of the first trial records, Nonindicted 35’s protocol of examination of witness, 3.6 pages, 5°5701 of investigation records

Note 71) Answer to the request for cooperation in investigation by the chief of the District Tax Office for the investigation records 1637

Note 72) Statement of Nonindicted 35 of the Investigation Record 4432 Prosecutor’s Office

Note 73) Five pages of the first trial record of witness examination of Nonindicted 35

According to the statement in the above court from around 2004 to the date, Nonindicted 70, Nonindicted 35, and Defendant 1 did not confirm the above trees only once they traded the above trees as genuine intent, and furthermore, they did not pay rent to the land owner. Furthermore, this is not only against the empirical rule, but also against the content certification that Nonindicted 35 received from Nonindicted 71, the owner of the above land. Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that Nonindicted 71 did not fully know about the above legal statement of Nonindicted 35, since the contents of the content certification that Nonindicted 35 received from Nonindicted 71, the owner of the above land do not have any effect on Nonindicted 35 (a proof of the content of the investigation record 5702).

Note 75) The first prosecutor’s statement against Nonindicted 35, the 4430 pages of the investigation records

Note 76) The second prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 34 in the investigation record, 5710,5711

Note 77) Two pages of the first trial record of witness examination of Nonindicted 35

Note 78) Nonindicted 35 stated in this court that “The quantity of trees was reduced to the extent that the trees are safe (three pages of the second protocol of trial).” However, in the case of scarf trees of the Chungcheongbuk-gu, the quantity stated in the tree sales contract is more likely to increase than the quantity that Nonindicted 35 purchased from Nonindicted 36.

Note 79) Investigative records 4185, 4186. Number of pages and unit price table

Note 80) The second prosecutor’s statement against Non-Indicted 35 of the investigation record 5697

81) As stated in the facts of the crime in the instant case, as seen in paragraph (3) of the same Article, Defendant 1’s claim directly extinguished due to the crime in this part of this case was a loan claim of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) with respect to Defendant 1 on the account book, but according to the “the constituent elements of short-term bonds” in investigation records 2905, the loan claim is entirely limited to KRW 3,584,290 (Nonindicted Company 16), except for the amount of small amount of the loan claim (3,584,290), and it is merely merely a transfer of the above loan claim with the method of “short-term bond substitution for the above loan amount.” Therefore, in order to determine whether the above loan claim was merely a loan claim of KRW 10,00,00,000, KRW 27,941, KRW 905, KRW 146,2546,275,2846,2846,2756,25,2746,25,27,2647.

Note 82) Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) operated the representative receipt account, representative’s provisional payment account, and principal, officer, and loan account from 2005 to the account book, and at least a short-term loan account from 2007, and recorded various monetary transactions with Defendant 1 in line with each of the above accounts and received external accounting audits on the basis thereof (i.e., statement of composition of short-term claims on the 1621 pages, investigation records 3905 pages, evidence No. 58-1). Therefore, in order to recognize the fact that “Notwithstanding the above accounting and external audit, items or amount recorded in the said account book are false”, there is sufficient objective evidence that corresponds thereto.

In detail, the evidence submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel is evidence Nos. 42 through 58, 94, 97, and 654 in relation thereto. However, among the evidence list Nos. 49, 52, 53-1, and 2, the evidence list Nos. 49, 53-1, and 2 show that Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) engaged in the transaction of a bill of exchange, and further, how much interest was paid in the course of the transaction of the bill of exchange, not the evidence showing how the interest was reflected in the account book, and (ii) the other evidence shows only the fact that the provisional payment was made to a specific person, and it is insufficient to explain that it was actually made to the company, and (iii) the remaining evidence is entirely a summary of the account book itself or a summary of it, and there is no independent value of evidence in examining whether the payment was actually made, regardless of the nature of the payment on the account book.

Note 84) Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s written opinion on November 25, 2010 submitted by Defendant 1, 12,13

Note 85) 14 of the defense counsel’s written opinion submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel on November 25, 2010, and 11,12 of the summary of the pleadings submitted by the same defense counsel on May 4, 201

Note 86) Investigative records 4076 pages

Note 87) Investigative records 4073 pages

Note 88) Investigative Records 4074, 4075 pages

Note 89) President of the Account of 4087 of investigation records

Note 90) As seen in Article 1-B (2) of the part of the case No. 2010 Gohap1500 among the “Determination on Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and the defense counsel’s assertion”, Defendant 1 withdrawn on March 29, 006 the amount of KRW 4.1 billion out of the loans of Nonindicted Company 3, which was March 29, 2006 and paid to Nonindicted 6 as the balance of the acquisition price of his shares, and entered the said amount of KRW 4.1 billion in the account book of Nonindicted 3, as a loan to the representative director. The loans amounting to KRW 4.1 billion in the above circumstances constitute most of the loans of Nonindicted Company 3, Defendant 1.

Note 91) Director of 4088, 4089, 4092 of investigation records

Note 92) Investigation Record No. 6054 to 6058 Suspected Examination of Non-Indicted 10

Note 93) The interest was fully borne by Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) and Nonindicted Company 3 (Investigative Records 4096, the use of loans, and the transaction records of the loan account of the same 4098 to 4101).

94) Meanwhile, on March 30, 2006, the amount of KRW 4.1 billion, in most of the loans against Defendant 1 by Nonindicted Co. 3, 2006, was used for Defendant 1, respectively, and as seen in Section 1-B (2) of the part of the “Judgment on Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defense Counsel’s argument”, the same is as seen in Section 1-2 of the part of the case No. 2010, 1500. Accordingly, the portion recorded as the loans against Defendant 1 in the account book of Nonindicted Co. 3 cannot be deemed as the false claim existing only in the account book.

Note 95) A summary of the pleadings submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel on May 4, 2011, 13, 14

96) Rather, in this case, Nonindicted 12 is judged to have a public contest for Defendant 1’s embezzlement.

Note 97) 16 pages of the 9th trial record on the examination of Nonindicted 33

Note 98) Among the 9th trial records, 16 pages of the witness examination protocol against Nonindicted 33 and the list of evidence submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel 69

Note 99) Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s written opinion on November 25, 2010 submitted by the defense counsel, 16 pages of Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s written opinion, 15 pages of the written summary of the pleading as of May 4, 201, and 15 pages of the written summary of the 10th trial record as to Defendant 1.

Note 100) Of the 10th trial records, the 15, 16th, 8, 9, 35 through 37 of the 10th trial records concerning Defendant 1, Defendant 1’s suspect examination records of Defendant 2, Defendant 1 of the 10th trial records, Defendant 1 of the 12th trial records of Defendant 1

Note 101) Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s written opinion on December 16, 2010, two pages of the defense counsel’s written opinion submitted by the same defense counsel, two pages of the written summary of the pleading as of May 3, 201, thirty-three pages of the written summary of the pleading as of May 6, 2011, five pages of the written summary of the pleading as of May 6, 201, five pages of the written summary of the sixth trial, and twelve pages of the written summary of the Defendant’s examination as to Defendant 2 in the written summary of the first and second trial as of May 6, 201.

Note 102) Of the case No. 2010 Gohap1598 (hereinafter “Judgment on Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defense Counsel’s argument”), the “investigative Records” written in each share of the part of the case No. 2010 Gohap1598 refers to the “investigative Records of the case No. 2010 Gohap1598” refers to the “investigative Records of the case No. 130 to 134 of the Investigation Record of the Prosecutor’s Examination of Defendant 1.

Note 103) Of the 6th trial records, the defendant examination protocol against defendant 12, 21, 22 and the 36th trial records against defendant 2 among the 10th trial records

104) Furthermore, considering whether Defendant 1 demanded payment of the above KRW 200 million to Defendant 2, Defendant 1 made a statement to the effect that “There is no fact that Defendant 2 received a demand or demand” at the prosecutor’s office, and that Defendant 2 did not do so on one occasion at this court (the 9th prosecutor’s examination protocol against Defendant 1, the 137th public prosecutor’s protocol, and the 35th public prosecutor’s examination protocol against Defendant 2 in the 10th public prosecutor’s protocol). Meanwhile, Defendant 1 made an endeavor to receive reimbursement from December 2006, and Defendant 2 did not have any interest in the 20th public prosecutor’s explanation from the point of view of the fact that “the above fact was urged to retire from the mutual savings bank on or after December 207, 207, it appears that Defendant 1 did not have any interest in the 20th public prosecutor’s demand after his retirement from the mutual savings bank.” However, in light of the empirical rule-based on Defendant 19 and Defendant 26 second public prosecutor’s statement.

Note 105) The fourth protocol of the fourth protocol of the prosecution against Nonindicted 44, the fourth protocol of the examination of the witness, and Nonindicted 44 of the investigation record of Nonindicted 217.

Note 106) Details of investigation records 139 pages, certificates of deposit account performance in the same 144 pages, 418 pages of

Note 107) Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 1 had a maturity of one month with respect to the loans extended on June 30, 2006 (the 9 prosecutorial protocol against Defendant 1 of the Investigation Record 135, 136).

Defendant 2 also acknowledged the existence of Defendant 2’s loan amounting to KRW 200 million on June 30, 2006 at the prosecutor’s office. However, as to the receipt of KRW 200 million on September 20, 2006, Defendant 2 denied the receipt itself (a prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Defendant 2 on September 245, 246).

Note 109) Investigative records 7 to 9 pages

Note 110) Nonindicted Company 25 (Nonindicted Company 24) completed KRW 8.4 billion ( KRW 3 billion around October 04, KRW 600 million around February 05, KRW 4.8 billion around June 06, and KRW 386 to 414 investigation records of the case, KRW 2010 senior 1500, KRW 386 through 414), Nonindicted Company 9 (Nonindicted Company 18), KRW 7.8 billion ( KRW 2.1 billion around December 05, and KRW 2.7 billion around May 206, and KRW 344 through 374 of the investigation records), Nonindicted Company 1 (Nonindicted Company 15), and each of the instant investigation records of the instant case’s loans of KRW 5.8 billion ( KRW 06.9, KRW 154 through 374 of the investigation records), Nonindicted Company 2539 through 25147 of the investigation records of each case’s loans of KRW 5.5.5 billion (Article 15153654 of the investigation records).

Note 111) Although the said additional loan was offered as security the land of Pyeongtaek-dong, Chang-dong (number 2 omitted), it was found that the said land was already offered as security by Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank at the time, and (ii) the said additional loan constituted a breach of trust against Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank on September 19, 2006, all of the facts that the said additional loan constituted a breach of trust against Nonindicted 2’s mutual savings bank are viewed as criminal facts in the judgment of the case.

Note 112) Of the sixth trial records, the defendant examination protocol against defendant 1 4 to 46 pages

Note 113) Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s written opinion on December 16, 2010 submitted by Defendant 1

Note 114) Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s written opinion on December 16, 2010, three pages of Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s written opinion, 19,20 pages of the written summary of the pleading as of May 4, 201, and 19 through 22 pages of the written summary of the trial as of May 4, 201, submitted by the same defense counsel.

Note 115) Among the fourth trial records, the 8th trial records on Defendant 3, the 1,2, and 6th trial records on Defendant 3 among the 14th trial records.

The defendant 116) stated more detailed statements in the investigation process at the time. The contents of his statement are not that he decided to settle the loan amount of 200 million won, but that he received the same real estate from the defendant 1 in connection with the loan of the non-indicted 11. The defendant 11 did not specifically help the non-indicted 11 to get the loan requested by the non-indicted 11. The non-indicted 11 company used the land purchase fund at Geum-dong and the non-indicted 8 company (the non-indicted 15 company) for the loan of the non-indicted 200 million won and the non-indicted 200 million won, and the non-indicted 16's statement that the non-indicted 200 million won and the non-indicted 16's statement that "the non-indicted 16 company knew that the non-indicted 11 company was the non-indicted 3's office's land purchase fund and the non-indicted 4 company's loan of the above case."

Note 117) The first prosecutor’s statement against Nonindicted 12 in the investigation record 3629 to 3632, and the second prosecutor’s statement against Nonindicted 12 in the same 3731 and 3732

Note 118) Statement by the Prosecutor against Non-Indicted 65 of the 3663 to 3666 investigation records

Note 119) Prosecution 11 Prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant 1 of 6235

Note 120) Defendant 3 voluntarily returned KRW 200 million from Defendant 1 and testified that it was a plan to pay it to Nonindicted 84 (the 1,2 pages of the 14th trial record of Defendant 3 and the 4424 first trial record of Defendant 3).

Note 121) The first protocol of interrogation of the Prosecutor’s Office on Defendant 3, the 4418, 4419, and 4440 pages of investigation records

Note 122) Among the fourth trial records, the 7th trial records on Defendant 3, and the 4,5th trial records on Defendant 3 among the 14th trial records

Note 123) A sales contract with 2687,2744 pages of investigation records

Note 124) In the investigation record, the copy of the real estate register 2700 pages, the fifth prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Defendant 3 of 4504, Nonindicted 66 of the same 458 pages, and the same 4590 pages donation certificate

Note 125) In fact, Defendant 3 bears the cost of at least five million won only with the registration cost and the property tax due to the above transfer registration in the name of Nonindicted 66 (each receipt of the Investigation Record 4594, 4598).

Note 126) Each credit transaction agreement of 5321 to 5328 of investigation records

Note 127) Three pages of Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s written opinion submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel on January 5, 201, 201, 21, 21, 22, and 23 pages of the written argument submitted by Defendant 2’s defense counsel on May 6, 201

Note 128) The three pages of the defense counsel’s written opinion submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel on January 5, 201, Defendant 1’s defense counsel on May 3, 201, and Defendant 1’s defense counsel on May 3, 201 and Defendant 21 pages of the written summary of the pleadings submitted by Defendant 2’s defense counsel on May 6, 201

Note 129) A summary of the pleadings submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel on May 3, 201, 24, 25, 35, 36, and Defendant 2’s defense counsel on May 6, 2011, submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel

Note 130) Standing timber capital (the size of trees and the degree of persons who grow thickly)

Note 131) Among the third trial records, the 6th trial records on Nonindicted 62, the 5th trial records on Nonindicted 64, the 5th trial records on Nonindicted 64, and the 2010 high-scale1681 investigation records on Nonindicted 64 (hereinafter “decision on Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and defense counsel’s assertion”), the 2010 high-level1681 investigation records on the part of the case without indicating the case in each state refers to “2010 high-level1681 investigation records,” and the 1255th trial records on the 65th trial records.”

Note 132) Investigative records 808 pages, 1179 pages

Note 133) 7 pages of the 7th trial record of witness examination of Nonindicted 35, and a copy of the real estate register of the 926,927 pages of the investigation record.

Note 134) Article 10 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Ordinance of Seoul

Note 135) Various official questions of Jongno-gu Office of Jongno-gu with 1251 to 1254 pages of investigation records (in the event of a notice of a complaint against a person who fells without permission in a forest, a request for adjustment of public records pursuant to illegally damaged trees, a notice of the fact of damage to forest trees, and a notice following the implementation of restoration

Note 136) Court rulings of 1191 on investigation records

Note 137) Investigative records 833 pages

In relation to the transfer of ownership, acquisition tax was reported with acquisition cost of KRW 3.9 billion (the investigation record 259 pages).

Note 139) Investigative records 824

Note 140) Among the fourth trial records, 9, 10, 5, 7, 8, 21, 23, 24, 26, 9, 22 of the 6th trial records on the examination of Nonindicted 22 among the 5th trial records on the examination of witness against Nonindicted 22.

Note 141) Six pages of the third protocol of examination of witness with respect to Nonindicted 23 and six pages of the fourth protocol of examination of witness with respect to Nonindicted 22 in the protocol of examination of witness.

Note 142) Among the third trial records, 10, 11, 12, and 4th trial records on the examination of Nonindicted 23 as to the examination of witness, 11th trial records on Nonindicted 22, and 15th trial records on the examination of witness on Nonindicted 22 in the fifth trial records.

Note 143) In relation to this, Nonindicted 23 stated in the prosecution that “(A) at the time of receiving KRW 10 million from Defendant 2, Nonindicted 23, “(Around December 2005, Nonindicted 205, Nonindicted 23, at the time of Defendant 2’s receipt of KRW 10 million, Defendant 2 told Defendant 1 to be the money received from Defendant 1, but it was true that he thought that he was the money received from Defendant 1 due to his perception. Thereafter, Nonindicted 23 stated that he was able to say that he was able to have a sense of care for the loans related to Defendant 1 (a suspect interrogation of Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 66, and Nonindicted 23 of the Investigation Record).

Note 144) Copies of the cashier’s check of 1189 investigation records

Note 145) Investigative records 787 pages

Note 146) Investigation Records 788, 789, 791

Note 147) Part 7, 8, 23, 24, 25, 26 of the 5th trial record on the examination of Nonindicted Party 22 in the 6, 9th trial record on the examination of witness against Nonindicted Party 22 in the 6th trial record.

Note 148) Among the third trial records, 26, 27 pages of the protocol of examination of witness on Nonindicted 62 and the fifth trial records on Nonindicted 22 in the protocol of examination of witness.

Note 149) Investigative records 764 pages

Note 150) Investigative records 768 pages

Note 151) Among the fourth trial records, the statement of Nonindicted 64’s protocol of examination of witness with respect to Nonindicted 64, that of Nonindicted 64’s protocol of examination of witness, that of Nonindicted 64’s investigation records of public trial, that of Nonindicted 64’s protocol of examination of Nonindicted 23 of the investigation records of the case 2010Gohap1598

Note 152) Four pages of the third protocol of trial of witness examination of Nonindicted 63

153) Even when considering the situation that the price of land in some regions has fallen due to the so-called financial crisis since 2008, in light of the fact that the examination division at the time of loan 1, 2, and 3 calculated the average price at KRW 3 million on the premise of the possibility of changing the form and quality of the above land and entered the survey price at KRW 8.592 billion on the premise of the possibility of changing the form and quality of the above land, it is sufficiently recognized that the land price reflecting the possibility of changing the form and quality does not exceed 10 billion.

Defendant 2 asserted that he was not involved in the business at the time of the third and fourth loans since the beginning of 2006 (the 20th anniversary of the summary of the pleadings submitted by Defendant 2 by his defense counsel on May 6, 201, and the 11th page of the 10th trial records), but Defendant 23 consistently stated that the time when Defendant 2 was excluded from the business was excluded from the business (the 13,14, and 40th trial records on Nonindicted 23) and that the time when Defendant 2 was excluded from the business was consistently stated after Nonindicted 94 was excluded from the loan business on March 2007 (the 3th trial records), and that Defendant 2’s employees ledger (the 7 through 9th trial records) of Nonindicted 2 of the mutual savings bank against Defendant 2 on several occasions, and that Defendant 2 was not subject to disciplinary action on February 1, 2006.

Note 155) If the method of book manipulation, window dressing accounting, etc. is mobilized, this shall apply.

156) According to the method of adding the amount of profit from each of the above crimes among the criteria for processing multiple crimes, the type of the crime is set based on the aggregate amount of all the amount of profit from the above crimes. However, since the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) due to embezzlement of KRW 9,907,053,348, which is a single crime among the increased result, is higher than the case of non-indicted 11 in the case of a single crime (the crime of embezzlement against the above non-indicted 11 constitutes the case where the amount of profit is 5 billion won or more, and less than 30 billion won, the crime of embezzlement against the above non-indicted 11 constitutes the case where the amount of profit is '5 billion won or more', it falls

Note 157) According to the transaction records of the loan loan account of Nonindicted 2 Mutual Savings Bank (the investigation records of the case 2010Dahap15000, Defendant 1-related loan records of 5041, and each transaction records of 5042 through 5097, except for Defendant 1-related loan in the name of Nonindicted 91): as of October 26, 2010, Defendant 1-related loan amounting to KRW 44,436,461,757 (if interest is combined, KRW 65,536,461,757). According to the complaint of civil action brought by Nonindicted 2 Mutual Savings Bank (the investigation records of the case 2010Dahap1681, Nov. 5, 2010), the principal of Defendant 1-related loan amounting to KRW 54,890,000,000,000,000.

Note 158) Evidence list 655,656 submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel

Note 159) If a person working in the field of finance commits a crime using an opportunity to perform his/her occupation.

(160) Defendant 2 asserted that Nonindicted 2 paid approximately KRW 1.1 billion out of the above 3.5 billion of the transaction records of the loan loan loan loan loan account Nos. 2 submitted by the defense counsel of Defendant 2 based on the statement in this court (17 pages of the fourth trial record of the witness examination of Nonindicted 22 in the fourth trial record), the letter of bad debt-off (125 pages of the investigation records of the case) and the letter of bad debt-off (125 pages of the case) and the evidence No. 2 submitted by the defense counsel of Defendant 2. Accordingly, according to the assertion, the amount of KRW 2.4 billion out of the damage suffered by Nonindicted 2 was not recovered yet.

Note 161) 6302, 6303, 6307 pages of the investigation records of the case 2010Gohap1500

Note 162) Defendant 1’s defense counsel Nos. 66

Note 163) The period of use from August 10, 2006 to September 9, 2006, and the date of the preparation of a tax invoice.

Note 164) 6302, 6303, 6307 pages of the investigation records of the case 2010Gohap1500

Note 165) Defendant 1’s defense counsel Nos. 67

Note 166) 6302, 6303, 6305 pages of the investigation records of the case 2010Gohap1500

Note 167) Defendant 1’s defense counsel Nos. 72-1, 2

Note 168) 21 pages of the 12th trial record on the examination of Nonindicted 33

Note 169) Nonindicted 53 of the investigation records of the 2010 Gohap1500 Case, the prosecutor’s statement of Nonindicted 53 of the 5819 Case, the copy of the 5834 Promissory Notes, and the confirmation letter of 5835 pages

Note 170) 5844 of the investigation records of the case 2010 Gohap1500

Note 171) The prosecutor stated in the bill of indictment only to the effect that “a loan of ten billion won was made on four occasions from April 30, 2004 to September 19, 2006” and stated the name of the crime as “violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)” and “Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Violation of Trust) and Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act” and stated in the bill of indictment of January 13, 201 as “Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) and Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act” but did not change the name of the crime and the applicable provisions. It is reasonable to interpret the bill as above.

Note 172) 2010Gohap1681 Investigation Record 257 pages

Note 173) 2010Gohap1681 Investigation Record 253 pages

Note 174) 2010Gohap1598 Investigation Record 223 pages

Note 175) 2010Gohap1681 Investigation Record of the case, the 258 pages of the real estate sales contract, and the 259 pages of the real estate acquisition tax report

Note 176) A certified copy of the real estate register of 797 pages of the investigation records of the case 2010 Gohap1681

177) The prosecutor appears to have been indicted for a single crime in view of the fact that the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the second, third, and fourth loans, which are found guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the relation between the comprehensive one crime. However, as seen in the above 4. Paragraph, it is judged that this is in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes, and thus,

Note 178) Nonindicted 10 was registered as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 3 from September 9, 2009 to June 28, 2010, and as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) from January 27, 2010 to the time of the instant indictment.

Note 179) Nos. 5, 9, 15, 16 of the evidence list in 2011, 40 cases

Note 180) 10 pages, 414 of the investigation records of the case 201Gohap40

Note 181) Documents attached to 10 pages of the investigation records of 2011Gohap40 cases are documents attached to the investigation report.

Note 182) The second prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted Party 10, the investigation records of 2011Gohap40 case, 363 to 370

Note 183) The second protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted Party 10 among the 8th protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted Party 10, the second protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted Party 374 and 375 on the investigation records of Nonindicted Party 10

Note 184) As of the same date, a contract for acquisition of shares was prepared in Chapter 2. Of them, Nonindicted 7’s transfer of Nonindicted Company 3’s shares to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 16”). One of the two is Nonindicted 4’s transfer of Nonindicted Company 3’s shares to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16), and the other is Nonindicted 4’s transfer of Nonindicted Company 3’s shares to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) (hereinafter “Investigation Record”).

Note 185) Nonindicted 4’s transfer of Nonindicted Co. 3’s shares to Nonindicted Co. 8 (Nonindicted Co. 16) (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 40”) Nonindicted Co. 4’s investigation records of the case.

Note 186) The content of Defendant 1’s sale of solid art worth KRW 200 million to Nonindicted Co. 3 is that Defendant 1 sells (the investigative records of the case 201Gohap40).

Note 187) Defendant 1 sells high-tech art works worth KRW 3 billion to Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 16) (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 16”). Defendant 1’s investigation records of the case 201Gohap40)

Note 188) 7 to 10 pages of the 8th trial record on the examination of Nonindicted Party 10

Note 189) An investigation report of 414 to 417 of the investigation records of the case 2011Gohap40

Around July 2010 to around September 9, 2010, the share acquisition agreement found in the office waste bags entered the number of shares subject to acquisition in relation to Defendant 1. On the other hand, a sales contract is also prepared in which the content of the additional sale of high-tech art products is to be sold (in the 8th trial records, the 24 pages of the examination of witness as to Nonindicted 10, 33, 38, and 42 of the investigation records of the 2011 High-Tech40 case and the 31, 33, 38, and 42 of the 8 trial records).

Note 191) 2 to 5 pages of the 10th trial record on the examination of Nonindicted 33

Note 192) Among the 10th trial records, the 1 to 3 pages of the examination of witness against Nonindicted 43, 5 pages

193) After Nonindicted 10’s restoration of the files stored in the Nowon-gu computer that was submitted to the prosecution in the course of investigation, Nonindicted 10 discovered the files of the written contract for acquisition of shares on January 20, 2010, but did not discover the files of the written contract for acquisition of shares on July 15, 2010, and July 20, 2010. However, as seen earlier, it is suspected that Nonindicted 10 directly prepared the file of the written contract for acquisition of shares with the above Nowon-gu computer. Thus, such circumstance does not directly conflict with Nonindicted 33 and Nonindicted 43’s respective legal statements (the eightth trial record of witness examination of Nonindicted 10, 31, 201, and 461, respectively).