Defendant

Lee Jae-dae (Court) (Court of Second Instance), Kim Young-young (Court of Appeals), Choi Jae-man, Kim Jong-ju, and Song Jong-Gyeong (Court of Justice)

Law Firm, Pacific et al.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1.44,7330,232 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of taking property in breach of trust from Nonindicted Co. 2, as set forth in the attached Table 3 Nos. 1 through 20, and the charge of taking property in breach of trust from Nonindicted Co. 16, shall be acquitted.

1. Status and status of the defendant 1);

The Defendant was the head of ○○○ Group’s general manager, who was a female of Nonindicted 6 and was employed as a director in around 1973, and was registered with Nonindicted 3 Company from January 1, 1980 to February 1, 1983, the director of Nonindicted 3 Company’s business headquarters from March 1, 1983 to February 1, 198, the managing director in charge of Nonindicted 3 Company’s business (the vice president in charge of the middle office), from March 3, 198 to June 197, and the head of Nonindicted 3 Company 28 Company, the vice president, from June 2, 1997 to March 208, and was registered with Nonindicted 3 Company 27 Tax Exemption Business Division, from April 2008 to February 1, 201, and was also registered with Nonindicted 3 Company 3 Company from March 27, 2008 to June 31, 2014 to September 30, 2019.

On the other hand, the Defendant owned the shares in the ○○ Group to the market price of KRW 250 billion, such as Nonindicted Co. 3’s 0.74%, Nonindicted Co. 32. 2.52%, Nonindicted Co. 33.66%, Nonindicted Co. 34, Nonindicted Co. 35.24%, Nonindicted Co. 36.14%, Nonindicted Co. 37, 3.51%, Nonindicted Co. 38, 1.33%, Nonindicted Co. 39, 0.13%, Nonindicted Co. 39, 40.17%, Nonindicted Co. 41, Nonindicted Co. 41, and Nonindicted Co. 42 0.01%.

2. The relationship between the defendant and his children, and the non-indicted 1 corporation, etc.

The Defendant, in the name of Nonindicted 8, established a non-indicted 1 Company (100% of shares), non-indicted 25 Company (90% of shares), and non-indicted 26 Company (100% of shares), established three married children, including the Defendant’s representative director and the largest shareholder (5%) and non-indicted 43, non-indicted 23, and non-indicted 5, as the funds of the non-indicted 1 Company (15% of shares), and included the part of the established capital as the funds of the non-indicted 1 Company (3) after excluding the non-indicted 21 Company, the non-indicted 9, who was the head of the ○○ department store, as the representative director of the above three companies except for the non-indicted 21 Company, and thereby, determined the financial matters concerning the fund operation of the said four companies. The Defendant used the Defendant’s funds to operate the non-indicted 1 Company in the name of the non-indicted 8, and received them.

3. Acceptance of property in breach of trust;

(a) Resolutions on the duties and crimes of defendants;

As seen in paragraph (1), as the total number of ○○○ Group, the Defendant has been taking part in the management of ○○○○ Group’s affiliates related to distribution of ○○ Group, including Nonindicted Co. 3, a corporation operating ○○○ department stores, and Nonindicted Co. 27, a corporation operating ○○ duty-free shops, and has exercised a limited influence over the operation of ○○ department stores and ○○ department stores.

In particular, at least 50% of the above company sales, and Nonindicted Co. 3’s department store sales department, Nonindicted Co. 27’s duty-free business department accounts for at least 80% of the above company sales, and takes charge of the business selection of shop occupants and the determination of store location and fees. From September 1993 to September 1993, the Defendant was working for Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 27, while working for the president and general vice president, Nonindicted Co. 3’s duty-free business department president, and the general vice president, etc., and received reports and approves important matters. Meanwhile, the selection of the shop location and the store location of ○○○ and ○○ department department store was an important matter affecting sales, such as fees paid from shop occupants, and there is a strong competition among the relevant companies.

Therefore, the Defendant has a duty to fairly deal with the business considering the estimated sales amount or sales amount of the occupant enterprise and the occupant enterprise, brand strike and expertise, etc. In this regard, there was a duty to not receive any form of monetary benefits from interested parties, such as shop occupants, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by taking advantage of the above position and influence as seen above, had attempted to receive money and valuables in return for the selection of ○○ department store and ○○ duty-free shop location and store location.

B. ○○ department store occupants

피고인은 여고 동창으로서 요식업체인 공소외 44 주식회사 및 공소외 19 주식회사를 운영하는 공소외 4 로부터 2001. 2.경 ○○백화점 본점(♤♤점)에 회전초밥 가게인 '△△△△' 매장을 입점하게 해 달라는 부탁을 받은 것을 시작으로 그때부터 2006. 12.경까지 지속적으로 위 매장의 ○○백화점 입점을 부탁받아 왔고, 공소외 4는 위 기간 동안 공소외 44 주식회사 및 공소외 19 주식회사 명의로 ○○백화점 본점(2001. 2.)을 비롯하여 ♡♡점(2002. 5.), ●●점(2002. 8.), ◇◇◇점(2002. 10.), ▲▲점(2003. 2.), □□점(2003. 5.), ■■점(2004. 2.), ◆◆점(2004. 5.), ★★점(2004. 6.), ▼▼점(2005. 10.), ◀◀점(2006. 12.) 등 11개의 △△△△ 매장을 입점하였다.

Around January 2007, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s office room located in the Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, demanded Nonindicted 4, who was planning for the additional sales center of △△△ stores, to pay the revenue of △△△ stores. Nonindicted 4, who consented to the demand of Nonindicted 4 to pay the revenue of △△△△ stores at four shares of the revenue of △△△ stores. He also asked the △△△△△△△△ store to offer a good opinion in the future, and, at the same time, continued to receive a promise from Nonindicted 4 to pay the revenue of the △△△△△△△ store in order to change convenience related to the pre-existing sales center by providing additional sales center to ○○○○ department store and renew the existing sales contract. Around April 2008, around January 201, the Defendant received a solicitation from Nonindicted 4 to the effect that the above promise to pay the revenue of △△△△ store and △△ store store around 5 weeks.

그리고 공소외 4는 2008년경부터 2014년경까지 ○○백화점에 △△△△ 매장의 추가 입점을 시도하면서 피고인에게 “이번에 입점하려고 한다, 신경 좀 써 줘”라고 부탁하였고, 위 기간 동안 ○○백화점 ▽▽점(2008. 5.), ▶▶점(2008. 7.), ☆☆점(2009. 12.), ◎◎◎점(2010. 9.), ♠♠점(2011. 8.), ♥♥점(2012. 1.), ♣♣점(2012. 3.), ♧♧점(2014. 11.) 등 8개의 △△△△ 매장을 입점하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 66 million in total from Nonindicted 4 by directly receiving the revenue of the above △△ store once every two months from February 2, 2007 to December 2, 2007 by directly receiving the revenue of the above △△ store, as indicated in [Attachment Table 1] No. 1 to No. 8, and 6 million in total, from April 2008 to May 2016, the Defendant received KRW 53,660,000,000 in total from April 208 to May 2016 by directly receiving the revenue of the △△△△△△△ store from 1 to 3,000 in total, including KRW 536,00,000,000, including KRW 59,666,00,00,00 in total, from around February 2, 207 to December 207.

Accordingly, the defendant received 59,9660,000 won in response to illegal solicitation in relation to his duties as a person who administers another's business.

C. Receipt of money and valuables from Nonindicted Co. 2 with regard to ○○ duty-free shop occupants, etc.

피고인은 2012. 10.경 공소외 10을 통해 ○○면세점 본점(♤♤점) 입점업체로서 화장품 제조·판매업체인 공소외 2 주식회사 대표이사 공소외 11로부터 “○○면세점 내 화장품 매장을 앞쪽 좋은 곳으로 옮겨 달라”는 부탁을 받고 이를 승낙하였다.

In addition, around November 30, 2012, the Defendant ordered the president of the Tax Exemption Division, Nonindicted Co. 27, Nonindicted Co. 12, at that time, to change the cosmetics store of Nonindicted Co. 2, to the location desired by Nonindicted Co. 2, and gave the above cosmetics store to the highest place of “the highest place of customer’s eye, which is most well-known and easy to access.”

On the other hand, as above, Nonindicted 10 agreed with Nonindicted Company 2 on the payment of 3% of the sales revenue of Nonindicted Company 2 in return for changing the location of the cosmetics store as seen above. From January 2013 to July 2014, Nonindicted 10 received KRW 66,2350,050 won in total over 20 times through the account in the name of Nonindicted Company 45 and Nonindicted Company 46 operated by it from Nonindicted Company 2 from around January 2013 to July 2014 through the account in the name of Nonindicted Company 45 and Nonindicted Company 46.

On the other hand, at the first half of 2014, the Defendant instructed the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1, 1, and Nonindicted Co. 9 to receive direct payments for the moving of ○○ duty-free shop in which Nonindicted Co. 10 was receiving the order from Nonindicted Co. 9, and Nonindicted Co. 13, who received the order from Nonindicted Co. 9, demanded, through Nonindicted Co. 14, “Nonindicted Co. 11, who was the president of Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd., was the Defendant, was the Defendant, and the relationship between Nonindicted Co. 10 and Defendant’s president was terminated, so from this point, the Defendant demanded that Nonindicted Co.

Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 84,767,232 from Nonindicted Co. 2 to May 2016 via an account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co., Ltd. from Nonindicted Co. 2 to May 2016, as indicated in attached Table 3 21 to 42, in total, KRW 84,767 million over 22 occasions.

As above, in collusion with Nonindicted 9, the Defendant received a total of KRW 84,767,232,232 in return for the illegal solicitation to transfer cosmetics to a good location within the ○○ duty-free shop of Nonindicted Company 2 to a person who administers another’s business.

4. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement and Breach of Trust), occupational embezzlement, and occupational

A. Relevant breach of trust, such as false benefits to Defendant’s children

As seen in paragraph (2), since the Defendant actually controls and operates Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 25, there is a duty to ensure that the corporate expenses of the above companies do not unfairly excessive.

Nevertheless, the Defendant ordered Nonindicted 9’s representative director Nonindicted 9 to pay the said company’s benefits to the Defendant’s wife, who was registered as a director and auditor of the said company, but did not work properly. In addition, the Defendant ordered the Defendant to pay the said company’s benefits to the Defendant’s wife, who did not perform his duties as director and auditor.

Accordingly, from January 2006 to December 201, Nonindicted 9 paid KRW 332,80,000,000 to Nonindicted 43, in total 20 times, the sum of KRW 1.17,374,798 to Nonindicted 23, and KRW 1.11.67,910 to Nonindicted 5, and KRW 3.32,81,748,00,00 to Nonindicted 25 from April 2009 to May 201, as shown in the list of crimes in attached Table 5.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 9, obtained pecuniary benefits of KRW 3.566,2130,748 from 3.5 billion to 3 his/her married couple in violation of his/her business duties, and thereby, inflicted on Nonindicted Co. 1 Company 3.322,813,000 won and KRW 234 million on Nonindicted Co. 1 Company and KRW 254 million, respectively.

(b) Embezzlement of corporate funds by appropriating processing personnel expenses;

(1) Resolution for crime

On December 2010, according to the opinion of the non-indicted 9 that there is a problem that the defendant's wife, who does not actually work, has retired from the executive officers of the non-indicted 1 corporation, could no longer pay them any more, and the defendant's wife could no longer pay them. Accordingly, the defendant's wife's daily living expenses, etc. were not adequate, and the defendant's wife's embezzlement of the corporate funds to be actually operated by the company.

(2) Embezzlements related to Nonindicted Co. 25

On January 207, the Defendant entered Nonindicted 47 as a false employee instead of reducing Nonindicted 8’s benefits to Nonindicted 9’s representative director of Nonindicted Co. 25, Nonindicted Co. 9, Nonindicted 25, and ordered Nonindicted 8 to pay Nonindicted 47’s benefits. Nonindicted 9 entered Nonindicted 47 as a false employee of the said company in accordance with that order, and thereafter, up to May 2016, the Defendant deposited KRW 43,9247,190 in total in Nonindicted 47’s account for the benefit of Nonindicted 47 until May 2016, the Defendant deposited Nonindicted 43,9247,190 in total, as indicated in Nonindicted 47’s list of crimes, and deposited the passbook and seal to Nonindicted 8’s wife, thereby withdrawing the said money, and used the said money free of charge for living expenses, etc.

(3) Embezzlements related to Nonindicted Co. 26

On February 2, 2009, the Defendant continued to deposit the interest on Nonindicted 23’s loans to Nonindicted 26 Co. 26 Nonindicted Co. 9’s representative director and Nonindicted 23’s non-indicted 23’s account and transferred it to Nonindicted 23’s account and voluntarily used it by way of lending interest, repayment, etc., from that time to December 2009, Nonindicted 9 registered himself and Nonindicted 48 as the false employee of the said company in accordance with its instructions, and thereafter, until December 2009, up to 17 times in total as shown in the attached Table 8.

(4) Embezzlements related to Nonindicted Co. 1

In addition, the Defendant, around July 2010, withdrawn the total amount of KRW 150 million from Nonindicted Co. 1 to Nonindicted Co. 1 to pay the provisional payment from Nonindicted Co. 23 and Nonindicted Co. 5, who acquired 15% of its equity interest while establishing Nonindicted Co. 21.

On December 2010, the Defendant received a report from the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 1, 2010 that Nonindicted Co. 23 and Nonindicted 5 have not yet repaid the said provisional payment, and Nonindicted Co. 9 instructed that “I Hashen Company Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Has Has Has Hasen because shes hershes hershes hers 41.5 million won. At that time, Nonindicted Co. 9 received the said provisional payment amount as KRW 15

(5) Embezzlements related to Nonindicted Co. 21

Around January 201, the Defendant continued to manage the funds of Nonindicted Co. 21 upon the Defendant’s order from the Defendant, and instructed Nonindicted Co. 9, who had been managing the funds of Nonindicted Co. 21, to “ how only Nonindicted Co. 50, while operating the spion, may interfere with other difficulties?” In accordance with the direction, Nonindicted Co. 9 recorded Nonindicted 48 as a false employee, and thereafter, from that time until May 2016, the Defendant deposited Nonindicted Co. 48’s total amount of KRW 5,177,630,00 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 48’s salary until May 2016, the Defendant deposited Nonindicted Co. 43 and Nonindicted Co. 23, as indicated in the attached Table 9, the head of the Tong and the seal, and had the female use them for daily expenses, etc. at will.

(6) Sub-determination

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 9, embezzled KRW 43,924,77,190 for the corporate funds of Nonindicted 25 Co. 25, and KRW 3774,540,00 for the corporate funds of Nonindicted Co. 26, and KRW 150,000 for the corporate funds of Nonindicted Co. 1, and KRW 55,177,630 for the corporate funds of Nonindicted Co. 21, in collusion with Nonindicted Co. 9.

[Paragraphs 1 and 2]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 9

1. Entry of each part of the protocol concerning the examination of the accused in the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutorial statement on Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 49, Nonindicted 50, and Nonindicted 51

1. Investigation report (27 companies, list 1 through 3), investigation report (27 companies, non-indicted 1 companies, non-indicted 52 companies and non-indicted 53 companies, list 7 through 9), each of the certified transcript of evidence register (Evidence List 10,17), investigation report (Evidence List 18), investigation report (Account 34 through 49) and non-indicted 2 company, investigation report (Evidence List 34 through 53 companies, non-indicted 1, non-indicted 1, and non-indicted 52 and non-indicted 53 companies), defendant 2, investigation report (Evidence 27, 52, 53) and investigation report (Evidence No. 27, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 16, 13, 16, 36, 16, 36, 47, 16, 16, 36, 16, 3, and 3, 1, and 4 of evidence report.

[Article 3-1(a)(b) of the Fair Trade Commission]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 4, 17, and 18

1. Entry of each part of the protocol concerning the examination of the accused in the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutorial statement on Nonindicted 4, 17, 18, 50, 54, and 51

1. Non-Indicted 19, 19, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 267 through 274, 267, 27, 3, and 9, 2, and 9, 2, 3, and 8, 19 (3).

[Article 3-1(3), (3)]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 55, Nonindicted 56, Nonindicted 57, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 9, and Nonindicted 58, respectively.

1. The part of each statement made by the prosecution against the defendant in each protocol of interrogation of suspect (including the part concerning the statements made by the defendant, non-indicted 10 and non-indicted 9

1. Each prosecutorial statement on Nonindicted 11, 10, 14, 15, 13, 15, 15, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64

1. 수사보고(공소외 27 주식회사 기업현황, 증거목록 1 내지 3번), 수사보고(공소외 1 주식회사·공소외 52 주식회사·공소외 53 주식회사 기업현황, 증거목록 7 내지 9번), 각 법인등기부등본(증거목록 10, 17번), 피고인에 대한 인물검색(증거목록 11번), 각 기업신용조사보고서(증거목록 18번), 수사보고(회계·세무자료 분석-공소외 1 주식회사·공소외 52 주식회사·공소외 53 주식회사 등 피고인 측 기업, 증거목록 34 내지 40번), 수사보고(공소외 27 주식회사 이사 피고인의 업무범위 확인, 증거목록 52, 53번), 수사보고(피고인·공소외 11·공소외 10 마카오 동행 관련 항공편 확인, 증거목록 75, 76번), 수사보고(압수수색검증영장 집행결과보고 - 공소외 8 주거지, 증거목록 96번), 수사보고(피고인이 공소외 8 등 자녀의 인장 관리 사실 확인, 증거목록 99, 100번), 수사보고(공소외 1 주식회사 사업 개관, 증거목록 116, 117번), 수사보고(공소외 1 주식회사 압수수색시 면세사업 컨설팅을 수행한 자료 미확인, 증거목록 119, 120번), 수사보고(공소외 1 주식회사의 이 사건 금품 관련 ‘면세사업 컨설팅’ 거래내역 확인 - 공소외 2 주식회사, 공소외 16 주식회사, 공소외 65 주식회사, 공소외 66 주식회사, 증거목록 121, 122번), 수사보고(피의자 피고인 주거지 특이 압수물 분석, 증거목록 126번), 수사보고(공소외 1 주식회사의 피고인 관련 법무법인 검토 자문자료 첨부, 증거목록 131 내지 133번), 수사보고(공소외 1 주식회사의 증거인멸 정황 확인, 공소외 2 주식회사와 공소외 1 주식회사 간 작성한 계약서 3부 확인, 증거목록 144 내지 148번), 수사보고(공소외 2 주식회사는 ○○면세점과 직거래 당사자로서 ○○ 면세점과의 관계에서 공소외 1 주식회사가 에이전트로 인정되지 않는 사실 확인, 증거목록 151 내지 154번), 수사보고(공소외 1 주식회사측의 증거인멸 관련 - 공소외 15 모바일 포렌식 분석결과, 증거목록 159, 160번), 수사보고(공소외 2 주식회사의 매장 위치 이동 대가 지급내역, 증거목록 169 내지 171번), 수사보고(피고인 결재 공소외 27 주식회사 면세사업부 문서목록 편철, 증거목록 180 내지 182번), 수사보고(공소외 1 주식회사 실제 운영자 피고인으로 확인된 문건 보고, 증거목록 183 내지 186번), 수사보고(피고인이 최종 결재한 기안지 확인관련, 증거목록 187 내지 190번), 수사보고(공소외 2 회사 등 ○○면세점 입점 국내업체에 대해 실제 컨설팅업무가 없었다는 자료 확인 - 압수물분석, 증거목록 202 내지 204번), 수사보고(디지털 증거 압수물 분석, 증거목록 224 내지 238, 240번), 수사보고(공소외 27 주식회사 면세사업부 업무 관련 피고인 결재문서 확인, 증거목록 245 내지 253번), 수사보고(공소외 2 주식회사의 매장 위치 이동 전·후 매출액 추이 분석, 증거목록 254, 255번), 수사보고(피고인과 공소외 8, 공소외 1 회사와의 거래관계, 증거목록 275, 276번), 수사보고(공소외 1 주식회사와 공소외 2 주식회사·공소외 16 주식회사 간 거래내역 확인, 증거목록 349, 350번), 수사보고(‘매장위치이동’ 관련 청탁 대금 사용처 확인, 증거목록 360, 363, 364번), 수사보고(공소외 2 주식회사와 공소외 1 주식회사 간 세금계산서 첨부, 증거목록 365, 366번), 수사보고(공소외 2 회사 매장 확장 이동 및 마진율 변경, 증거목록 367, 368번), 수사보고(♤♤점 공소외 2 회사 매장 위치변동 내역 편철, 증거목록 373 내지 375번), 수사보고(공소외 2 회사 매장 이동 관련 기안문 등 편철, 증거목록 376 내지 378번), ‘면세점 업무-공소외 66 회사’ 서류(증거목록 462번), ‘면세점 매장 방문시 체크리스트’ 서류(증거목록 463번), 2015. 3. ~ 2016. 5. 이메일 내역(증거목록 465번), 각 메시지 내용(증거목록 470 내지 476번)

【Paragraph 4 of this Article】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 9

1. The statement of each part of the protocol of interrogation of the accused by the prosecution (including the part concerning the statement other than the prosecution nine statements);

1. Each prosecutorial suspect examination protocol against Nonindicted 9

1. Each prosecutorial statement on Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 48, and Nonindicted 47

1. Investigation report (the status of the defendant, non-indicted 1 corporation, non-indicted 52 corporation, non-indicted 53 corporation, non-indicted 53 corporation, evidence list 7 through 10), each corporate register (Evidence List 17), each corporate credit investigation report (Evidence List 18), investigation report (Account 18, Non-indicted 1 corporation, non-indicted 52 corporation, non-indicted 53 corporation and non-indicted 54 through 49), investigation report (Evidence List 34 through 49, Non-indicted 1 corporation, non-indicted 1 corporation, non-indicted 52 corporation, and non-indicted 53 corporation), investigation report (the date of the defendant is specified in the evidence list, No. 82 through 84 of the evidence list), investigation report (the status of the defendant's corporate funds, the situation of the receipt of children's corporate

(The Defendant asserts that there was no specific instruction given to Nonindicted 9 in relation to each embezzlement. However, Nonindicted 9 consistently with the investigative agency and this court stated that the Defendant committed the crime of embezzlement under the direction given by the Defendant. The Defendant actually controlled Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, and Nonindicted 21, as indicated in its reasoning, and in light of the status and relationship between the Defendant and Nonindicted 9, the above Nonindicted 9’s statement can be reliable.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes), Articles 357(1) and 30 (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, including the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes), Articles 357(1) and 30 (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, Article 35(1)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) of the Criminal Act with the largest punishment and nature of the crime)

1. Additional collection:

The latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act

(Additional Collection = KRW 1,447,332,232 = Amount of 59,9660,000 from Nonindicted 4 + Amount of 84,767 million won in breach of trust from Nonindicted 2 Stock Company 9)

1. Receiving property in breach of trust from Nonindicted 4

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

1) The Defendant did not receive the sales revenue from Nonindicted 4 with respect to the store in need of rescue.

2) Since the Defendant agreed with Nonindicted 4 as the Defendant’s store to store the store located in the place where the place of the residence was closed, the place of the sale of the store located in △△△, and the store located in △△△, the Defendant did not receive the sales revenue in return for an illegal solicitation.

3) Preliminaryly, the Defendant’s receipt is not the profit but the “actual business rights of the relevant store,” and thus, the value of which cannot be calculated. In addition, it cannot be said that the amount recorded in the facts charged is sufficiently proven.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant can be recognized as having received money in return for the illegal solicitation from Nonindicted 4 as stated in its holding. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

1) Whether to receive money

In the investigation agency and this court, Nonindicted 4 consistently stated that the Defendant paid the sales revenue to the store located in △△ branch, the branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a local government, the branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a local government, the branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a local government, the branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a local government.

2) The assertion that the defendant's store was operated

A) There is no objective evidence, such as financial transaction data or a contract, supporting the Defendant’s assertion that Nonindicted 4 agreed to the store located in the place of residence in which the Defendant was a party to the instant case, the place of residence in △△△, and the store located in △△△, as the Defendant’s store.

B) Nonindicted 4’s statement

(1) Nonindicted 4 made a statement that is likely to be interpreted as consistent with the Defendant’s assertion in this court. Nonindicted 4 respondeded to the counsel’s question, “In the event of entry, Nonindicted 4 made an agreement with the Defendant at the time of entering the store under the name of the Defendant, and made an agreement with the Defendant at the time of leaving the store in the name of the vehicle?” “We need to have reached an agreement with the Defendant in advance.”

(2) However, in this court, Nonindicted 4 stated in this court that “I did not know about the legal relations, and used the expressions such as “I are four shares,” “I are in,” “I are in,” “I are in,” and “I are in,” and Nonindicted 4 responded to the prosecutor’s question whether the store of the witness is “I are in,” and whether I are in, or not I are in, giving the Defendant the proceeds coming from, the store of the witness in this court?

(3) Nonindicted 4 made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that the relevant store was “the Defendant’s share” on the premise that the store was located in the ○○○ department store. Nonindicted 4 made a statement at an investigative agency on the store store, and stated, “The Defendant continued to expand the store after the store was located in the ○○ department store office. I cited the Defendant’s mind to expand the store in the future, and stated that “The Defendant would have a store to be divided into four shares” (12:780 pages of the investigation record), and “The Defendant would have a store located in the ○○ department store at once. I would like to give four shares in the case of the store store. I would like to ask the Defendant that “The Defendant would have been given a benefit to the Defendant” (12:786 of the investigation record). In addition, Nonindicted 4 asked the Defendant that “The Defendant would not have any defect in the investigation record at one time” (12:2).

(4) As above, Nonindicted 4 made a statement to the effect that “the share of the Defendant in the store is the Defendant’s profit.” Nonindicted 4 stated in an investigative agency that “the Defendant was “a request to store” the meaning thereof, and Nonindicted 4 made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant would give a profit derived from the store because he was in charge of managing the store,” (No. 12 right 1127 pages). In addition, Nonindicted 4 made a statement to the effect that “the reason why Nonindicted 4 received the profit from the store was “the Defendant’s profit was carried out by himself, so it would have been operated.”

(5) Ultimately, it appears that Nonindicted 4 did not know the legal meaning accurately and responded to the questions of the defense counsel. In full view of the following: (i) Nonindicted 4 appears to have been the intent of allowing the Defendant to pay the proceeds of the store on the premise of his own occupation; (ii) Nonindicted 4 appears to have been in a case where Nonindicted 4 made profits from the store that he decided to sell without the agreement with the Defendant; and (iii) Nonindicted 4 told the Defendant that “the Defendant would have to pay one to the Defendant,” without the agreement with the Defendant, the part of Nonindicted 4’s statement that “the Defendant would be,” and “the Defendant’s share to the Defendant,” among Nonindicted 4’s statements, should not be interpreted as having been interpreted as having operated the Defendant’s name store; and (iii) it should be interpreted as having the meaning that Nonindicted 4 would make the Defendant instead of having the entire proceeds of the store operated by Nonindicted 4.

다) 피고인이 □□점, ◇◇◇점, ☆☆점, ▽▽점의 운영과 관련하여 비용을 지출하였거나 운영에 관여하였다는 사정은 없다. 또한, 피고인은 수사기관에서 공소외 4에게 위탁하였다고 주장하는 매장의 개수를 기억하지 주10) 못하였다. 2014. 10. 31.에는 대표자가 공소외 4의 딸 공소외 18로 되어있는 □□점 △△△△ 매장(18평)과 대표자가 공소외 4의 딸 공소외 17로 되어있는 공소외 44 주식회사 김밥 매장(5.1평)을 합하여 △△△△ 매장(23.1평)으로 변경하였는데(수사기록 9권 4052쪽), □□점이 피고인의 차명매장이라면 이처럼 공소외 4의 가족이 운영하는 다른 매장과 합한 것을 설명하기 어렵다. 그리고 공소외 4는 자신이 운영하는 법인 명의로 입점하여 매장을 운영하다가, 피고인에게 지급할 현금을 쉽게 마련하기 위하여 법인 명의로 되어있던 사업자를 개인 명의로 바꿨다.

D) In full view of these circumstances, the argument that Nonindicted 4 managed the Defendant’s store is difficult to accept.

3) The assertion on the amount of funds received.

A) Since Nonindicted 4 paid the proceeds received from the store in cash individually from time to time, Nonindicted 4’s acquisition is deemed cash received by the Defendant, and it cannot be deemed as “the actual business rights of the store.”

B) In the investigative agency and this court, Nonindicted 4, 17, and 18 stated to the effect that Nonindicted 4 gave cash to the Defendant by calculating the amount of money excluding interior expenses, personnel expenses, and expenses, etc. from the proceeds when Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 17, or Nonindicted 18 withdraws cash within the scope of the sales floor’s profits.

C) The amount of this portion is calculated by deducting, from the sum of the amounts, excluding the particulars that Nonindicted 4 had not been paid to the Defendant, out of the details of cash withdrawals in the account of the store located at the △ point managed by Nonindicted 4, the △△ point in △△, the △△△△△ point, and the store located at the location of the shop (the investigation record No. 10:4870-4876, 4946-4956) and the amount less than the amount, which was calculated by deducting the expenses and taxes, and the net profits (Evidence No. 481 of the evidence list) that Nonindicted 4 had been written at his own expense. The amount so calculated is deducted from the amount calculated on the basis of Nonindicted 4’s statement, the cash withdrawal details, and the method of calculation is reasonable (On the other hand, the defense counsel argues that additional construction expenses should be deducted from the interior of the store, but it cannot be deemed that the Defendant has not received any additional amount of the criminal facts until the Defendant had paid the expenses.

4) Whether it is an illegal solicitation

In this court, Nonindicted 4 stated that the Defendant was located in ○○○ department store, and that Nonindicted 4 talked with the Defendant when intending to work in ○○ department store. In addition, Nonindicted 4 stated that the Defendant was a kind of friendly Gu with which the Defendant was the Defendant, and that Nonindicted 4 could not refuse to demand the Defendant’s demand to change the Defendant’s profits due to the Defendant’s sales in her share of business. In full view of the background leading up to Nonindicted 4’s giving money to the Defendant, the status and authority of the Defendant in ○ department store, and the amount and method of the received money, etc., it is sufficient to view the money received by the Defendant as remuneration for illegal solicitation contrary to social norms and good faith.

2. Receiving property in breach of trust from Nonindicted Co. 2

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

1) Since Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) entered into a lawful and effective consulting agreement with Nonindicted Co. 2 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 2”) and received fees as consideration for providing consulting services and receiving fees, Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) is not a consideration for illegal solicitation.

2) Nonindicted Co. 1’s receipt of fees from Nonindicted Co. 2 cannot be deemed the same as the Defendant received.

B. Relevant legal principles

“Unlawful solicitation” in the crime of giving and receiving or giving evidence in breach of trust does not necessarily require it to the extent that it constitutes the substance of occupational breach of trust, and it is sufficient that it violates social rules or the principle of good faith. Determination as to whether an “illegal solicitation” constitutes “illegal solicitation” must comprehensively consider the content of solicitation and the amount of consideration related thereto, form, and the integrity of transactions, which are the legal interests protected by the law, and such solicitation does not necessarily have to be explicitly and explicitly made, and may not be explicitly and explicitly made even if it is made. In addition, where the nature of money and valuables provided to a person who administers another’s business is indivisiblely combined with the nature of the consideration for unlawful solicitation and other acts, such solicitation shall be deemed as having the nature of the consideration for unlawful solicitation (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3080, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.

The crime of taking property or property in breach of trust under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another person's business obtains property or property benefits in exchange for an illegal solicitation in connection with his/her business. The crime of taking property or property in breach of trust under Article 357 (2) of the same Act is established where a person who administers another person's business obtains property or property benefits from another person, even though he/she received an illegal solicitation in connection with his/her business. It is clear that the crime is not established where the other person, in light of social norms, has the same relation with the person who received property or property benefits from another person, even though the person who administers another person's business received an illegal solicitation in connection with his/her business, has other person acquire property or property benefits from another person: Provided, That under such circumstances as where the other person acquired property or property benefits from another person's personal expenses or where the person who received an illegal solicitation was liable for debts to the other person, etc., if it can be evaluated that the other person directly received property or property benefits from the same as the other person received such illegal solicitation.

C. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant can be recognized as having received money in return for the illegal solicitation from Nonindicted Company 2 as stated in its holding. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

1) Whether the fees paid under the contract concluded between Nonindicted Company 2 and Nonindicted Company 1 constitutes an illegal solicitation

A) Status and authority of the defendant at 00 duty-free shops

The Defendant was appointed as an internal director of Nonindicted Co. 27 at the time of receiving this part of the money as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment. Moreover, the Defendant exercised his authority as a final person with authority to make final decisions, such as ○○ Duty-free Shops sales, personnel affairs and financial affairs, and finally approved the new brand salesroom occupants, fluort brand drop, and fluorial position change document (in investigation record 7 rights 2919-22 pages)

B) The process of concluding the contract

(1) On October 2012, Nonindicted 11’s representative director of Nonindicted Company 2 requested Nonindicted 10 to transfer the location of ○○ duty-free shop to Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 10 told the Defendant. The Defendant instructed Nonindicted 12, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 27, to review the change of the location of ○○ duty-free shop. Nonindicted 2, the Defendant changed the location of the store of Nonindicted 2, around November 30, 2012. In light of the fact that the change of the location of the store was not planned, the store was changed to the Defendant’s direction, and the change of the location of Nonindicted Company 2, the (trade name 3 omitted) and (trade name 4 omitted) were changed to the location of the store again within 30,000,000 won, it can be deemed that the change of the location of the store was giving preferential treatment to Nonindicted Company 2.

(2) Nonindicted 10 agreed to receive 3% of the sales revenue in return for changing the location of the store from Nonindicted Company 2 as above, and received KRW 66,235,050,050 from January 2013 to July 2014. As seen in the acquitted part, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was aware that Nonindicted 10 was to receive the fee and instructed to change the location of the store. However, in full view of Nonindicted 10’s investigation agencies and court statements, Nonindicted 9’s investigation agencies and court statements, and Defendant’s partial investigation agencies’s statements, the Defendant was at latest aware that Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted 2 received compensation for moving Nonindicted 10’s store location by using their friendship with the Defendant before concluding the consulting contract. As seen above, the Defendant instructed Nonindicted Company 2 to the effect that the Defendant was aware of the fact that Nonindicted 10 was receiving the payment for the relocation of the store.

C) Intention, etc. of the parties to the contract

(1) In the investigative agency, Nonindicted 11, the vice president of Nonindicted Company 2, stated that Nonindicted 14, the vice president of Nonindicted Company 2, was paid to Nonindicted Company 1 at the investigative agency and this court. Nonindicted 9 stated that Nonindicted 10, who did not have any experience in the duty-free business in this court, maintained a contractual relationship with Nonindicted Company 2, thereby making it possible for Nonindicted Company 1 to fully maintain the contract.

(2) In concluding a contract with Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 2, the Defendant’s intent was also confirmed as to the remainder of the contract period with Nonindicted Company 10. Nonindicted 14 stated in this court that, even if Nonindicted Company 1 did not order the accompanying in the negotiation with respect to the burial, Nonindicted Company 1 paid money to Nonindicted Company 1 in return for the movement of burial. As seen below, there is no business performance of Nonindicted Company 1 after the conclusion of the contract, and there is no reason to have entered into the contract with Nonindicted Company 1, and it seems that there is no reason to have entered into the contract with Nonindicted Company 1. The fact that Nonindicted Company 2 entered into the contract with Nonindicted Company 1 while destroying the contract with Nonindicted Company 10 is consistent with Nonindicted 14 and Nonindicted 11 that Nonindicted Company 10 paid the consideration for the change of the location of burial that was the main store to Nonindicted Company 10.

D) Business, etc. undertaken under a contract

(1) In relation to ○○ duty-free shop, Nonindicted Co. 1 appears to have not provided services on a systematic basis except for the purpose of negotiating fees or assisting Nonindicted Co. 2 in moving the store location. Unlike the fact that Nonindicted Co. 1 provided services related to new salesroom, employing employees, and shop construction in relation to ○○ duty-free shop with respect to Nonindicted Co. 16, Nonindicted Co. 2 did not perform these duties in relation to ○○ duty-free shop. In relation to ○○ duty-free shop, Nonindicted Co. 2’s duties in relation to ○○ duty-free shop are deemed to have been directly performed by Nonindicted Co. 2, as in the previous case of entering into a contract with Nonindicted Co. 1 with Nonindicted Co. 1. A document stating the person in charge of the business of Nonindicted Co. 2, written at ○ duty-free shop, stated Nonindicted Co. 1 as a transfer set forth in Nonindicted Co. 16, but stated as a transfer set of Nonindicted Co. 2’s contact with Nonindicted Co. 2, 22, Ltd.

(2) Before entering into a contract with Nonindicted Company 2, Nonindicted Company 1 did not have any record of consulting on the duty exemption business. Nonindicted Company 1 added “consulting business related to the duty exemption business” to the purpose business on July 22, 2014, which was before Nonindicted Company 2 was paid the commission from Nonindicted Company 2 (No. 148 of the Investigation Record No. 1). Nonindicted 13, the former agent of Nonindicted Company 1, stated in this court that there was no team in charge of consulting business with Nonindicted Company 1 when entering into a contract with Nonindicted Company 2. Nonindicted 57, the employee in charge of ○○ duty exemption duty exemption, stated that there was no team in charge of consulting business with Nonindicted Company 1.

(3) Nonindicted Co. 2 entered into a contract with Nonindicted Co. 67 on (trade name 5 omitted) duty-free shops and (trade name 6 omitted) duty-free shops, and Nonindicted Co. 67 took charge of duties, such as sales management, orders for products, sales adjustment, advertising expenses, etc. on behalf of Nonindicted Co. 2. However, according to Nonindicted Co. 14’s legal statement, the fee rate that Nonindicted Co. 67 pays to Nonindicted Co. 2 is 2% of the sales amount, and thus, it does not exceed the fee that is paid to Nonindicted Co.

(4) When this part of the crime was reported to the media, and the investigation was commenced, Nonindicted Co. 5’s employees, unlike other brands, included the daily sales of Nonindicted Co. 2 in the future in the sharing of new brand sales. Nonindicted Co. 1’s employees in the future, followed the overall process of business, including the scope of duties, role sharing, and individual division of duties (No. 1851-1852 pages). In light of the foregoing text messages, it appears that Nonindicted Co. 1 reported daily sales or did not systematically share duties with respect to Nonindicted Co. 2, unlike other brandss.

(5) 이 사건 수사가 시작된 후, 공소외 1 회사의 직원들은, 공소외 2 회사와 컨설팅 계약의 내용에 (상호 6 생략)면세점(♤♤점), (상호 7 생략)면세점을 포함하는 것에 대하여 합의가 되지 않았음에도, 위 면세점들을 포함하는 계약서를 소급하여 작성하였다.

E) The defense counsel asserts that Nonindicted Company 1 participated in negotiations on the increase of fees with ○○ duty-free shop and the change of store location, etc. However, since Nonindicted Company 2 appears to have expected the status of Defendant at ○ duty-free shop in such negotiations and paid fees, it can be seen as a circumstance to reinforce that Nonindicted Company 1 was paid for illegal solicitation. Moreover, the circumstance that Nonindicted Company 13 independently reviewed Nonindicted Company 2’s contract with ○ duty-free shop but suspended due to the lack of business feasibility, it is difficult to deem that the circumstance that Nonindicted Company 1 was subject to legal review while concluding a contract with Nonindicted Company 2 is a critical factor in determining the substance of the contract.

2) Whether the receipt by Nonindicted Company 1 can be deemed the same as the receipt by the Defendant

A) Nonindicted Co. 1 holds 100% of the Defendant’s shares. However, Nonindicted Co. 8 was unable to participate in management due to health reasons, and the Defendant appears to actually run the Nonindicted Co. 1 by ordering Nonindicted Co. 9. Nonindicted Co. 9 stated in the investigative agency and this court that the Defendant made a decision on all important matters of the Nonindicted Co. 1’s dividends, bonuses, various major business conditions, etc. In addition, as indicated in paragraph (4) of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment, the Defendant directed Nonindicted Co. 9, thereby allowing the Defendant to pay the Defendant’s benefits to his children, or to pay the provisional payment by receiving bonuses from Nonindicted Co. 1.

B) The Defendant kept the seals of Nonindicted 8, etc. in the bank located in the office room (No. 1150-1154 pages). Nonindicted Company 1 borrowed money from Nonindicted 8, and made payment by subrogation to the Defendant, and made accounts that he borrowed the money deposited from the Defendant from Nonindicted 8 (No. 8 right of investigation record 3903 pages). Nonindicted 9 stated that Nonindicted 8 dealt with it without confirming the intention of Nonindicted 8 in the event that he purchases real estate with the money in the account of Nonindicted 8 under the direction of the Defendant at the investigative agency. The Defendant also stated that the investigative agency kept the account in the name of Nonindicted 8, which was deposited with Nonindicted 1 Company 1, and had Nonindicted 9 take a look at money (No. 12 right of investigation record 935 pages). As such, the Defendant appears to have made transactions under the name of Nonindicted 8’s seal and passbook, etc. with the name of Nonindicted 8.

C) The Defendant appears to have given the employees of Nonindicted Company 1 to have given instructions on the affairs of Nonindicted Company 1 (the Investigation Record 6: 2750 pages). The employees of Nonindicted Company 1 have given external publicity to the Defendant as the driver of Nonindicted Company 1 (the Investigation Record 5:2163, 2167 pages) and sent e-mail on the premise that the Defendant had “(mutual name 8 omitted)” store handled by Nonindicted Company 1 (the Investigation Record 5: 2180 pages). In light of this point, the employees of Nonindicted Company 1 may be recognized to have been aware that the Defendant actually controlled Nonindicted Company 1. In addition, Nonindicted Company 9, while the domestic employees of Nonindicted Company 9 have the Defendant’s 10% shares in Nonindicted Company 1, the Defendant appears to have given the same time in fact as the Defendant’s children in the duty-free shop industry.

D) Nonindicted Co. 1 had a golf course with a membership holder as the Defendant and a club membership (the investigation record 167 pages, 667 pages, 2754 pages). Nonindicted Co. 1 analyzed the governance structure of ○○○ Group and requested a law firm to review the ways to expand the control of the Defendant within the ○○○ Group, and paid the expenses (No. 1691-1695 pages). The order for delivery of goods prepared by Nonindicted Co. 1 included entertainment expenses paid to the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”). The employees of Nonindicted Co. 1 approved the Defendant’s entertainment expenses paid to the Defendant in the internal document of goods (the investigation record 6No. 2746-2747 pages). After the investigation of this case began, the employees of Nonindicted Co. 1 deleted the investigation report on the Defendant’s entertainment expenses paid to the Defendant from Nonindicted Co. 1 (the investigation record 411).

E) The money received by Nonindicted Company 1 from Nonindicted Company 2 was mixed with other money in the account, and the total amount of KRW 1.49 million was transferred to Nonindicted Company 8’s new bank account (Account No. 1 omitted) and our bank account (Account No. 2 omitted) (No. 10,4799). However, the said new bank account of Nonindicted 8 was used when it is transferred to the Defendant again (No. 4.930,000 won, which was received from the Defendant). In light of the fact that the Defendant traded by means of the seal and account in the name of Nonindicted 8, the amount received by Nonindicted Company 1 was deposited from Nonindicted Company 2, and there is sufficient possibility that the Defendant was used.

3) Sub-decisions

In full view of these facts, Nonindicted Co. 2 may sufficiently recognize that Nonindicted Co. 1 paid fees to Nonindicted Co. 1 in return for the Defendant’s moving to a place where the Defendant wants to store by taking advantage of the Defendant’s position at the ○○ duty-free shop, or for the maintenance of a store in good location. In full view of the developments leading up to the conclusion of a consulting contract, the Defendant’s status and authority at the ○○ duty-free shop, and the amount of money received, etc., the money received by the Defendant is sufficient to regard the money received as remuneration for an illegal solicitation contrary to social norms and good faith. Furthermore, even if the above consideration includes part of the remuneration for Nonindicted Co. 1’s performance of duties under the consulting contract, the nature as such remuneration is indivisible in nature as the consideration for illegal solicitation, and thus, the entire amount received by the Defendant is indivisible.

3. Breach of trust;

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

Since the child of the defendant actually contributed to the company, even if he paid excessive remuneration, it is not a breach of trust.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

If the directors, etc. of a legally appointed stock company actually manage affairs on behalf of the stock company, even if the directors' remuneration was formulated and resolved to be a budget bill, not an independent agenda item, but a budget bill, and therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the payment of remuneration resulted in a decrease in the total value of property to the stock company immediately, solely on the ground that the payment of remuneration was made. Moreover, it cannot be concluded that the payment of remuneration would result in a decrease in the total value of property to the stock company immediately, and the remuneration paid for the provision of certain labor under the direction and supervision of the transportation expenses, meeting expenses, etc. or representative director, etc. merely compensation for actual expenses, is not included in the provisions of the articles of incorporation or in the "compensation of directors, etc.," which require the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders. Therefore, in order to punish the acts such as paying remuneration, transportation expenses, etc. as a special breach of trust under the Commercial Act or as a crime of occupational breach of trust under the Criminal Act, it should be proven that the act was made for personal interests without connection with the business of the stock company, or excessively excessive expenditure beyond the reasonable scope (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do94.

2) Specific determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it can be sufficiently recognized that each benefit paid from Nonindicted Company 1 to Nonindicted Company 43, Nonindicted 23, and Nonindicted 5, and Nonindicted Company 25 to Nonindicted Company 43 for personal benefit without connection with the business of the corporation. Therefore, it can be recognized that the entire benefit paid in its reasoning is a property damage. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

A) In the investigative agency and this court, Nonindicted 9 stated that there was no office of Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 23, and Nonindicted 5 in the Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 25 in this court, and Nonindicted 43, a director, did not participate in the resolution of the board of directors; and that Nonindicted 43, a director, made the minutes of the board of directors formally using Nonindicted 23 and Nonindicted 43’s seals held by the company, when the resolution of the board of directors is required. Nonindicted 9 stated in the investigative agency and this court that there was no accounting knowledge to the extent that the audit of the company’s business or accounts was possible.

B) Nonindicted 9 stated in the investigative agency that Nonindicted 23 did not have an office but did not participate in the company’s business at all since 2005 as the company was stable. In addition, Nonindicted 9 stated in the investigative agency that Nonindicted 23 had much knowledge of overseas brand and stated that it did not handle the company’s business as its executive officer beyond mere advice.

C) Considering that Nonindicted 9’s receipt of money from the investigative agency and the Defendant’s father and wife in this court is the problem of receiving money, Nonindicted 9 stated that the Defendant’s statement was replaced by the executives working in the company’s corporate register with those working in the actual place. As such, it appears that the Defendant was aware that the payment of money may be problematic without working by his or her father and wife.

D) In full view of the above circumstances, remuneration paid to Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 23, and Nonindicted 5, who did not perform the duties of directors or auditors, appears to have been paid for personal interests, regardless of the company’s business.

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for not less than three years nor more than 45 years;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Misappropriation;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 4 of Property in Breach of Trust, Property in Breach of Trust, and Property in Breach of Trust (at least KRW 100 million)

[Special Convicted Persons] Note 11]

[General Aggravation] Aggravations: Where long-term acceptance of money and valuables or business relations is high for at least two years;

Reduction element: No record of criminal punishment;

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment for 2 years to 4 years

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

[Determination of Punishment] Embezzlement and Breach of Trust; Type 3 (not less than KRW 500,00 but less than KRW 5 billion)

[Special Aggravationd ] Aggravationd : None

Reduction element: Substantial one company, family company, or substantial damage has been restored;

[General Aggravation] Aggravations: None

Reduction element: No record of criminal punishment shall apply if the share of ownership is higher than that of the damaged enterprise;

[Scope of Recommendation] Special Mitigation Zone: Imprisonment for 9 months to 3 years

(c) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years to five years.

3. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant was appointed as the president and the vice president of Nonindicted Co. 3, and was in the position of receiving reports and approval on important matters of the ○○ department store as an internal director. Since the Defendant received money of KRW 59,660,000,000 from Nonindicted Co. 4 for a long period exceeding eight years in return for an illegal solicitation to provide convenience in connection with shop occupants, the crime is not good. As a result of the instant crime, the fairness and appropriateness of the business designating the ○○ department store’s shop occupants and the trust in the society was seriously damaged. Nevertheless, the Defendant is consistent with the defense that it is difficult to understand that the store was received from Nonindicted Co. 6’s president. The Defendant’s defense was conducted in accordance with the so-called “o”, disregarding the prescribed procedure for the selection of the ○○ department store shop occupants, and thus, it is doubtful whether the Defendant is aware of the problems of the instant crime.

The Defendant was appointed as the president of the Tax-Free Company 27 and the vice president of the Tax-Free Business Department. The inside director was in the position to report and approve important matters, such as the selection of the sales-free shop occupant, the location of the sales-free shop, and the decision on fees. The Defendant, using Nonindicted Company 1 under his control, received KRW 840 million from Nonindicted Company 2 in return for the change of the sales-free shop location. The Defendant, upon the request of Nonindicted Company 2 prior to the receipt of this part of the money, intended to change the sales-free shop location at the request of Nonindicted Company 2. The instant crime led to serious damage to the fairness and appropriateness of the sales-free shop occupant selection business of the ○○○ Tax-Free Shop and the trust in the society. The Defendant does not seriously reflect the Defendant’s criminal act, such as asserting that this part of the money is the price for legitimate consulting services.

The crime of embezzlement and breach of trust in this case was committed by registering children who do not work for the companies under the actual control of the defendant as directors and auditors, paying remuneration, registering false employees, and embling wages. Damage suffered by the victimized companies, such as Nonindicted Company 1, etc. due to the total embezzlement and breach of trust by the defendant reaches the total amount of KRW 4.7 billion. The defendant is held liable to Nonindicted Company 9, who did not specifically direct the crime even if he was fully recognized.

The Defendant’s act, as an operator of a large enterprise, has neglected the fundamental social responsibility and role, which is called “discept and reasonable business management.” It is necessary to restore the honor of the ○○ Group and the victimized Company, as well as the ○○ Group caused by the instant crime, and to hold the Defendant significantly liable for the sound development of the market economy order.

However, the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment. The Defendant deposited the entire amount of the property in breach of trust and instead did not want to be punished by the Defendant. The Defendant deposited the entire amount of the property in breach of trust and returned the amount of the property in breach of trust to the account or returned it to the account. The pecuniary damage was recovered. The victimized companies in breach of trust and embezzlement have been most of the shares of the Defendant and the family members of the Defendant. Such factors were considered as favorable to the Defendant, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and taking into account various sentencing conditions such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment

1. Part No. 1 No. 9 through 57 of the list of offenses in attached Form 1 among the charges of taking property in breach of trust from Nonindicted 4

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant, as stated in the facts of the crime No. 3(b) of the judgment, promised to pay the profits of the store in △△△△, and received KRW 57 million in total by either directly or through Nonindicted 5, 2010,000,000 from January 1, 208 to May 2016, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 No. 9 through 57, in return for the provision of convenience related to the store location, such as the provision of the △△△△△△△△ store sales store sales store and the renewal of the existing contract for the store location.

As a result, the Defendant received KRW 570,000,00 from a person who administers another's business in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

Non-Indicted 5 is unable to recognize the economic identity of the defendant because he is married as his father and is living independently from the defendant, and it is difficult to view that the defendant was in a relationship with Non-Indicted 5’s living expenses. Therefore, it cannot be said that Non-Indicted 5 received earnings from Non-Indicted 4 as the defendant received.

C. Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to recognize that Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 5 shared economic interests between the Defendant and the Defendant, as long as Nonindicted 5 received earnings directly from the prosecutor’s evidence alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the same.

1) Non-Indicted 5 is the body of the Defendant’s 1 South and North Korean women (i.e., the year of birth omitted), and Non-Indicted 22, the husband of Non-Indicted 5, is the U.S. attorney-at-law, and two children. Non-Indicted 5 appears to have a family independent of the Defendant.

2) Nonindicted 5, while managing the wave (mutually omitted), received a total of KRW 1,50 million from January 201 to April 2016 to KRW 1,50,000,000 per month from Nonindicted Co. 21 to April 2016 (No. 4 right to investigation records) (No. 2074 pages). Nonindicted 5 stated at an investigative agency on March 201 that Nonindicted Co. 5 had been in charge of managing the office and operating the Switzerland from around March 201 to assisting employees and foreign receptions.

3) 공소외 5는 (상호 2 생략) ◎◎◎점, ♣♣점 및 ▷▷점을 운영하면서도 수입을 얻은 것으로 보이고(수사기록 4권 2075쪽), 2012. 6.경 공소외 68에게 □□점 전주비빔밥 매장을 이전할 때까지 위 매장을 가지고 있었는데, 위 매장의 2011년도 순이익은 월 평균 약 200만 원이었다(수사기록 9권 4346쪽).

4) Nonindicted 5 owned approximately KRW 6.13 billion in total, including the shares of approximately KRW 587 billion and the deposits of approximately KRW 5.543 billion in banks (Article 12.7 billion in investigation records). In addition, according to Nonindicted 9’s investigative statement, Nonindicted 22 performed the duty of review of overseas contracts, etc. (Article 12.103 pages of investigation records).

5) As above, Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 22 appears to have obtained income through economic activities. There is no circumstance to deem that such income was not included in the facts charged in the instant case, and that it was received without actually performing their duties. Moreover, Nonindicted 5 appears to have held considerable property in addition to the property received by the Defendant due to the Defendant’s instant crime. Inasmuch as the prosecutor formed Nonindicted 5’s property with the Defendant’s aid, it is assumed that Nonindicted 5 was in an economic same relationship with the Defendant. However, there is no evidence to prove that the said property formation was made solely by the Defendant’s aid without Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 22’s efforts.

6) As long as it cannot be seen that Nonindicted 5 received the same as that of the Defendant, in the case of the annexed Table 1 No. 9, which the Defendant or Nonindicted 5 received, even if the part received by the Defendant was partially included, the amount cannot be calculated. Thus, as in the case of the case of the above Table No. 10 or 57, which Nonindicted 5 received in full, it is inevitable to determine in favor of the Defendant.

D. Sub-committee

Thus, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of crime. However, as long as it is found to be guilty of the crime of taking property in breach of trust from non-indicted 4 in the judgment that is related to the crime

2. Of the charges of taking property in breach of trust from Nonindicted Co. 2, the part Nos. 3 1 through 20 of the attached list of crimes (joint crime with Nonindicted Co. 10)

A. Summary of the facts charged

피고인은 2012. 10.경 피고인과 각별한 친분관계를 형성해 온 공소외 10을 통해 ○○면세점 본점(♤♤점) 입점업체로서 화장품 제조·판매업체인 공소외 2 회사 대표이사 공소외 11로부터 “○○면세점 내 화장품 매장을 앞쪽 좋은 곳으로 옮겨 주면 매출액의 3%를 주겠다.”는 부탁을 받고 이를 승낙하면서, 공소외 10에게 “돈이 나오면 우선 알아서 쓰고 월 5,000만 원이 넘게 나오면 우리 둘째딸과 나눠 써라"고 말하였다.

In addition, the Defendant ordered the president of the Tax Exemption Division of Non-Indicted 27 Co. 27 to change the location of Non-Indicted 2’s cosmetics store around November 30, 2012, as stated in paragraph 3(c) of the judgment.

Accordingly, from January 2013 to July 2014, the Defendant had Nonindicted Co. 10 deposit KRW 66,235,050,050 over 20 times, as shown in [Attachment Table 3] Nos. 1 to 20 times, through the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 10 and Nonindicted Co. 45 and Nonindicted Co. 46 operated by Nonindicted Co. 25 and his/her management.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 10, received 66,2350,050 won in return for receiving illegal solicitation in relation to his duties.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

The Defendant did not participate in the receipt of fees from Nonindicted Company 2, and there is no fact that Nonindicted Company 10 conspireds with Nonindicted Company 10.

C. Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is difficult to believe that Nonindicted 10’s investigative agency and this court’s statements consistent with this part of the facts charged are true, and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone are insufficient to deem that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant and Nonindicted 2 received fees from Nonindicted Company 2 in collusion with the Defendant and Nonindicted 10.

1) As seen earlier, the Defendant asked Nonindicted 10 to change the location of the store of Nonindicted Company 2 and ordered the change of the location of the store. However, in order to establish the crime of taking property in breach of trust in collusion with Nonindicted 10, the Defendant agreed with Nonindicted 2 to receive fees from Nonindicted Company 10 in return for the change of the store, or recognized that Nonindicted 10 would receive fees from Nonindicted Company 2 at least at the time of ordering the Defendant to change the location of the store, should be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

2) In the investigation agency, Nonindicted 10 stated that Nonindicted 10 would receive 5% or 3% of the sales amount from Nonindicted 11 as commission for the movement of store from Nonindicted 11, and that “ Nonindicted 10 would be used in division with Nonindicted 23 who is the second parent if the amount exceeds KRW 50 million.” However, the above statements made by Nonindicted 10 are inconsistent in this court. However, in this court, Nonindicted 10 stated that the Defendant would have received 5% or 3% of the sales amount, as in the investigation agency, and that Nonindicted 10 did not have received 5% or 3% of the sales amount from the Defendant before the Defendant moved the location of store. Nonindicted 10’s investigative agency and court statements made by Nonindicted 10 also differ from the Defendant’s sales amount, whether Nonindicted 10 was the Defendant or not, and how Nonindicted 23’s phone numbers were phone numbers received from Nonindicted 23’s husband.

3) There are parts difficult to understand even if Nonindicted 10’s statement is trusted as it is.

A) Although Nonindicted 10 asked the Defendant to transfer the store location twice, Nonindicted 10 asked the Defendant to do so, the Defendant refused to do so, and thereafter, the Defendant responded to the extent that he would be aware of. In such a situation, it is doubtful whether the Defendant first refused to move the store, and Nonindicted 10’s request was made difficult, but it was doubtful whether the Defendant told the Defendant that he would receive fees in return for moving the store.

B) In this court, Nonindicted 10 made a statement that he would have received fees from Nonindicted Company 2 by his own effort, and when the Defendant made a statement that he would have received fees from the Defendant, Nonindicted 10 made a statement to the effect that “I would think 3% would give more than 3%.” Even according to the statement of Nonindicted 10, it is doubtful whether the Defendant clearly recognizes that the Defendant would receive fees for the movement of Nonindicted Company 2. If the Defendant and Nonindicted 10 agreed in advance from Nonindicted Company 2 to receive fees from Nonindicted Company 2, it would have an interest in the amount of fees because the Defendant changed the store location to receive fees, and thus would have been 3% of the fees. Rather, in light of Nonindicted 10’s statement, it is doubtful whether the above response of the Defendant is more likely that the Defendant did not know about what kind of money the Defendant would receive from Nonindicted Company 10 under the name of Nonindicted Company 2.

C) According to the statement made by Nonindicted 10, the Defendant stated that Nonindicted 10 was written in installments with Nonindicted 23 if the Defendant exceeded KRW 50 million. However, Nonindicted 10 was not written in excess of KRW 50 million from January 2013 to July 2014. As such, it is doubtful whether it was necessary to ask Nonindicted 23’s telephone number to ask for the phone number of Nonindicted 23 and ask for the phone number of Nonindicted 23. Furthermore, Nonindicted 10 stated that Nonindicted 23 would have asked the Defendant to ask for the account number of Nonindicted 23 before giving money. However, according to Nonindicted 10’s statement, according to Nonindicted 10’s statement, it was doubtful whether Nonindicted 23 gave money to Nonindicted 23.

4) According to the statement made by Nonindicted 14’s investigative agency, Nonindicted 10 made it to the effect that the Defendant fully pays the fee to Nonindicted 14. However, Nonindicted 10 remitted the money received from Nonindicted Company 2 to the beneficiary, used it in the riverland casino, and used it personally as expenses for the operation of the company (No. 10 of the investigation record, No. 4795 of the investigation record). A part of the money received by Nonindicted 10 does not appear to have been divided by the Defendant.

5) In full view of these points, it is difficult to believe that Nonindicted 10’s statement that the Defendant, upon the request of Nonindicted Company 2, told the Defendant that he would receive 3% of the sales revenue from Nonindicted Company 2. There is sufficient possibility that the Defendant would have been aware of the fact that Nonindicted 10 would receive the commission after entering into the contract with Nonindicted Company 2 upon the request of the change of the sales floor location.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

3. The point of taking property in breach of trust from Nonindicted Co. 16

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant directed Nonindicted 9, in addition to Nonindicted Company 2, other domestic cosmetics, etc., to receive the price for ○○ duty-free shop occupants, etc., the Defendant called “to assist well at ○○ duty-free shop”; Nonindicted 1 Company 1, the head of Nonindicted 15, etc., upon Nonindicted 9’s order, instructed Nonindicted 16 Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted 16 Company”) to move to ○○ duty-free shop occupants due to the influence of Nonindicted 16 Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted 16 Company”), which is a domestic cosmetics company, around September 2014, requested Nonindicted 16 Company to move to ○ duty-free shop occupants by accepting the order.

그 후 2015. 2.경 피고인이 최종 결재하여 공소외 16 회사는 ○○면세점 ♤♤점 및 ◈◈◈◈점에 입점하게 주15) 되었고, 이에 피고인은 2015. 5.경부터 2016. 5.경까지 공소외 16 회사로부터 ○○면세점 입점 대가로 공소외 1 회사 명의 계좌를 통해 별지 범죄일람표4 기재와 같이 총 14회에 걸쳐 5억 6,544만 8,037원을 입금받았다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 9, received an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties and received KRW 56,544,037 in return.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

Since Nonindicted Company 1 entered into a lawful and effective consulting contract with Nonindicted Company 16 and received fees in return for providing consulting services, it is not a consideration for illegal solicitation.

C. Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to view that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that Nonindicted Company 1 was paid in return for an unlawful solicitation.

1) As evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, there are some statements made by Nonindicted 69 with investigative agencies, some investigative agencies and legal statements made by Nonindicted 9.

2) In an investigative agency and this court, Nonindicted 9 stated to the effect that Nonindicted 9 entered into a contract with Nonindicted Company 16 is the most key part of the sales at the ○ duty-free shop, and that the electronic registration and the delivery of official documents and official documents are merely simple business that the business entity did not have any more than anything at all, even if the business entity directly performs. However, Nonindicted 9 stated in this court that the specific contents of Nonindicted Company 1’s working staff did not know what he performed for Nonindicted Company 16, and therefore, there is sufficient possibility that Nonindicted 9, the representative director, was aware of the practical business and made a statement.

3) Nonindicted 69 stated in an investigative agency to the effect that the Defendant thought and concluded a contract to exercise the influence over salesroom occupants at ○○ duty-free shop. However, Nonindicted 69 appears to have concluded a contract, which is a practical agent who has concluded a contract, and that it is nothing more than affirming the statement of Nonindicted 24, the representative of Nonindicted Company 16, the final decision on the contract. Since each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 24 was not submitted as evidence to this court, there is no evidence to find out how Nonindicted 24, the representative of Nonindicted Company 16, had concluded a contract with Nonindicted Company 1 with any intention.

4) Nonindicted 13 stated to the effect that the investigative agency and this court provided practical consulting services and received fees. According to each description of the evidence Nos. 26 through 54 (including each number) submitted by the defense counsel, Nonindicted Company 1 appears to have performed duties in relation to the new salesroom, employment of employees, and store construction for Nonindicted Company 16 in relation to the relationship with ○○ duty-free shop. Nonindicted Company 69’s statement to the investigative agency also conforms to this.

5) Although Nonindicted Company 16 was located at a duty-free shop (trade name 5 omitted), it does not seem to have much experience in operating a store at a duty-free shop. Inasmuch as Nonindicted Company 16 did not work at the duty-free shop at the time of concluding a contract with Nonindicted Company 1, unlike that of Nonindicted Company 2, which had already been located at the time of entering into a contract with Nonindicted Company 16, there was a possibility that there was a lot of affairs to perform as a consulting contract by getting new sales at the time of entering into a contract with Nonindicted Company 2. While the prosecutor asserts that these affairs are sufficiently capable of doing so in Nonindicted Company 16, there is no ground to view that the consulting contract should be entered into for only the affairs that could not be directly performed, it cannot be readily concluded that the consulting contract, which was entered into for the affairs that could not be directly performed,

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

4. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against Nonindicted Co. 25

With respect to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) with respect to the charge of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the prosecutor prosecuted the crime by applying Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356, Article 355(2) and (1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act. However, it is clear that the amount of damage is KRW 234 million and is less than KRW 500 million.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of a crime. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of a crime of occupational breach of trust which is related to this crime, the sentence of

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment]

Judges 684,00

Note 1) Of the facts charged, the dividend and salary were deleted as they were not directly related to the elements of the crime.

2) Of the facts charged, the part unrelated to the acknowledgement of criminal facts was deleted.

3) Of the incorporated capital of Nonindicted Co. 21, Nonindicted Co. 21, Nonindicted Co. 23 and Nonindicted Co. 5’s paid-in KRW 150 million, as seen earlier, was appropriated for the provisional payment of Nonindicted Co. 1’s funds, and the provisional payment was repaid through the embezzlement of the said company’s funds.

(4) On May 2003, Nonindicted 4 changed the store in the name of an individual (Nonindicted 7) on January 2007, which was operated in the name of the legal entity, to make money easily available to the Defendant, and then up until December 2007, Nonindicted 4 gave the Defendant the proceeds therefrom.

(5) On October 13, 2011, the store at the place of residence in Seoul Special Metropolitan City was operated by Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 4, a company located in Nonindicted 44, and was operated in the name of Nonindicted 7 on April 2008. The store at the place of residence in Seoul Special Metropolitan City was changed to the name of Nonindicted 18, which was changed to the name of Nonindicted 7 on April 2008 (the re-transfer to the name of Nonindicted 18, May 2014). The store at the place of residence in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Do, in May 2008, and on December 2009, the store at ○○ department was changed to the name of an individual (Nonindicted 4, 201) around January 13, 201.

6) Since Nonindicted 5 was acquitted on the part of the facts charged, the part received by Nonindicted 5 was organized accordingly.

Note 7) As to the part received by Nonindicted 10 among the facts charged, the Defendant cannot be recognized as a public-private partnership relationship, and thus, the Defendant was acquitted. Accordingly, the facts charged were organized.

8) While Nonindicted Co. 2 moved to another location and moved to a different location and the store of Nonindicted Co. 2 was located in the front place of the elevator and escalator (trade name 3 omitted) and (trade name 4 omitted) on the front place of the cosmetics store, the store was located outside three months, the store was located in the said place. However, the above store was moved to another location and the store of Nonindicted Co. 2 was located in that place at the Defendant’s order.

9) In full view of the facts that this part of the revenues was received in collusion with Nonindicted 9, but Nonindicted 1 Company was practically a company under the control of the Defendant, Nonindicted 9 used the funds of Nonindicted 1 Company in accordance with the direction of the Defendant, and there is no circumstance to recognize that Nonindicted 9 received part of the revenues, the full amount of the revenues is deemed to have been received by the Defendant, and thus, the full amount of the revenues from the Defendant is collected.

Note 10) 12, 884 of investigation records

Note 11) Among special prisons, the “victim(s) who requested the execution of duties”, which is the element of mitigation, refers to the case where the defendant is divided into his crime, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant. Since the defendant does not recognize this part of the crime, the above mitigation element is not applied, and the above mitigation element is not applied, it is considered only in favorable circumstances.

Note 12) Since it is a concurrent crime of the same kind, the type shall be determined on the basis of KRW 4,740,901,968 (=the aggregate of the amount of profit in breach of trust + KRW 3,562,131,748 + the aggregate of the amount of profit in breach of trust + KRW 1,178,770,220).

(13) On May 203, 2003, in order to make the Defendant easily with money, Nonindicted 4 changed from May 2003 to January 2007, which had been operated in the name of the said store in the name of an individual (private-party 7) and operated in the name of the corporation, and from January 2008, up to the beginning of 2008, Nonindicted 4 provided the Defendant with the proceeds of the store, and Nonindicted 5 provided the Defendant with the same living expenses as that of Nonindicted 5’s daily living expenses. In this case, Nonindicted 5 provided the Defendant’s wife’s blood.

14) Nonindicted 10 withdrawn the money deposited in each of the above accounts and used it for personal purposes, including the amount of meals with the Defendant.

Note 15) The documents on the report on the sales of the above Nonindicted Company 16’s ○○ duty-free shop occupant approved by the Defendant were specified as the trading line (Nonindicted Company 1).

Note 16) Nonindicted 24 had been absent from the summons three times, and the prosecutor withdrawn his application for examination of evidence as to the prosecutor’s statement of Nonindicted 24 on the date of the seventh trial.