2013Gohap1141 A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

(b) Occupational embezzlement;

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

1. A;

2. B

Kim Yong-type (prosecution, public trial)

Attorney C (for the defendant A)

Law Firm D, Attorney E (Defendant B)

April 18, 2014

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, and imprisonment for two years and six months, respectively.

However, with respect to Defendant B, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant A’s embezzlement of KRW 89,338,200 due to the voluntary use of company funds from October 15, 2012 to December 18, 2012, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the establishment of a company’s asset and mortgage against the Defendants is acquitted.

Criminal History Office

I. The Defendants’ status

Defendant A, who was a KOSDAQ-listed corporation, refused the audit opinion on July 10, 2013 and was delisted on July 10, 2013, was the representative director of the victim F Co., Ltd. (former G Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “F”), and has overall control over the management and execution of funds, finance, investment, etc. from December 14, 2010.

Defendant B has been in charge of financial management and enforcement, finance and investment, etc. as a director in charge of financial affairs of F from January 201.

H, together with Defendant A, has been holding office as the respective representative director of F from December 14, 2010, and has overall control over the management and execution of company funds, finance and investment.

I, from December 14, 2010 to February 18, 2011, as a registration director of F and the representative director of J (Gu K & hereinafter referred to as "J") of F, an affiliated company, has been in charge of the distribution, sale, etc. of rare soil.

I. Public offering relations;

The Defendants pretended that the F’s business and sales conditions were low, and the loss was anticipated to be delisting each year since 2008, with H, I, etc., as if the sales revenue was generated through affiliated companies and processing companies, and conspired to use the F’s business and sales conditions at will by divulging or reducing corporate funds in the process, and shared the role of implementing the F’s business duties in accordance with their respective duties.

III. Joint Crimes by Defendants

1. Voluntary use of company funds;

Defendants, H, and I asserted that, through a resolution of the board of directors on September 27, 2012, the Defendants, H, and I returned to F the total of KRW 367 million from January through August 2012 to August following the resolution to return benefits for the improvement of F’s management balance, the amount of the benefits the sum of which was KRW 367 million from January through August 2012 was to be returned to F. Ultimately, around March 2013, the said KRW 367 million was appropriated as F’s asset increase profit at the time of the accounting audit in the fiscal year of 2012 (29) but there was no idea to return the benefits that was actually received.

A. On July 2, 2013, the Defendants: (a) dismissed the application for provisional disposition against the Korea Exchange, which was filed by F against the Korea Exchange; and (b) subsequently F’s delisting became final and conclusive; (c) published the above decision of dismissal at the Seoul Office located on the Gangnam-gu L and the second floor around July 3, 2013; and (d) received benefits returned from January 201 to August 2012 through the management department M by dividing the F’s funds under the business custody; (d) on the same day, Defendant A received KRW 130 million for Defendant B; (e) KRW 130 million for Defendant B; and (e) KRW 130 million for H; and (e) KRW 130 million for H on July 4, 2013 for the personal consumption of KRW 300 million; and (e) received KRW 300 million for the personal consumption of KRW 300,000 at will.

B. In the event that the sales price for the Seoul Building, etc. of F in Y in YY-gu, Ocheon-si entered F, the Defendants conspiredd with F to receive the benefits returned from January 2012 to August 8, 2012, and Defendant A received KRW 5,081,840 from the accounts in the name of F (Account Number 0) at the office of Songpa-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “B”) BB (hereinafter “B”) around August 6, 2013; around August 14, 2013, the Defendants received KRW 12,112,47,530, more than KRW 300,000,000 from the above office of BB, and received KRW 2969,370,000,000 from the above office of BB to receive KRW 370,000,000,000 in total, and received KRW 370,000,000.

2. No director or a person in charge of accounting of a company interfering with preparation and public announcement of financial statements or audit shall prepare and disclose false financial statements or consolidated financial statements in violation of the accounting standards prescribed by statutes, and shall not present false data to an auditor or a certified public accountant belonging thereto nor interfere with the normal external audit of an auditor by fraud or other improper means;

(a) False preparation and public disclosure of financial statements;

On April 1, 2013, the Defendants conspired with H, I, etc. to publish the business report for the fiscal year 2012 (29) through the Electronic Publication System of the Financial Supervisory Service at the office of the above Busan Busan place of business on April 1, 2013. The Defendants, as if sales of goods occurred, falsely included the sales of the goods to alkn-cars, C&Cs, IMs, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, and BC, and falsely included the sales amount of KRW 16.29 billion and the purchase amount of KRW 13.49 billion in total, as if the purchase of the goods occurred, notwithstanding the gross sales amount of KRW 2.8 billion in total sales amount, KRW 2.8 billion in total sales amount, KRW 9.4 billion in total sales amount, KRW 9.4 billion in total sales amount, KRW 9.4 billion in total sales amount, and KRW 16.5 billion in total sales amount.4 billion in total sales amount.

(b) Interference with audit;

From February 4, 2013 to February 7, 2013, the Defendants conspired with H and I to avoid the enemy by reducing the costs of F, and thereby interfered with the normal external audit of the auditor by unlawful means, such as presenting the monthly benefit account and the benefit ledger, which was falsely prepared as if the Defendants were to reduce the costs of F, to the accounting company belonging to the auditor Han Accounting Firm at the Busan Busan office of F. The 18 employees working in F are working in F’s office, and even if the payment was made with F’s funds, the Defendants were serving in the J, an affiliated company, after both withdrawal from F. As such, the Defendants were to have been working in F, and thus, were to have reduced the costs of KRW 160 million in total.

3. Unfair outflow, such as company funds;

A. If advance payment is made to another company related to the payment of advance payment with J prior to the transaction of specific goods and services, the company’s funds are executed without being provided with reasonable security. Thus, in the case of representative directors and finance-related directors of the same listed company as the Defendants, even if advance payment is made to affiliated companies, there is a duty to closely examine and pay the sales amount, operating profit, the ability to supply the pertinent goods, and the like career of the other company so that advance payment does not cause losses according to its purpose.

The J, along with H and I, did not have to use funds for the purposes of the company operation expenses and the separate business funds since the Defendants acquired the F around October 201 with H and I, as a new corporation established for He and I established for He and I for He and then did not own sell and operate any business and generate any profit, and the Defendants, H and I had been well aware of these facts. Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired with H, I, etc. in violation of the above duties, as well as H, I, etc. on January 10, 201, and caused damage equivalent to F’s money 3,235,000 won under the pretext of advance payment for He and the above Seoul Office, without being provided with considerable security at the above Busan Office and the above Busan Office and the above Seoul Office on January 10, 201.

In addition, in collusion with H and I, from around that time to December 24, 2012, the Defendants paid F’s total sum of KRW 5,407,423,857 in the same manner as F’s advance payment for the supply of scartos in the same manner at 76 times in the same place as indicated in the attached Table 1 List of Crimes, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 5,407,423,857 to J, and suffered damages equivalent to F.

B. Payment of loans to P, etc.

Defendant A and H respectively are the representative director of a corporation, and Defendant B and I, as a director in charge of finance and a registration director, have duties to examine the loan details and purpose, repayment ability, repayment plan, etc. of the borrower and to prevent any loss by securing reasonable collateral.

P Co., Ltd. ("P"), an unlisted corporation, was not entitled to take over Co., Ltd. due to the lack of a company or construction business license established around March 201 in order to take over shares in Co., Ltd. in Co., Ltd. ("P"), a local corporation of Saudi Arabia, a local corporation of Saudi Arabia. The capital of KRW 15 million, annual sales of KRW 1,00-20 million, and KRW 1,000,000, annual sales of KRW 100,000,000. In addition, Co., Ltd was a local corporation of Saudi Arabia, a company of Saudi Arabia, a local corporation of KRW 30,000,000,000,000 won, and there was no share in construction business-related share due to lack of fairness rate between July 201 and 2012, and no share in construction business-related share was worth being utilized.

Nevertheless, on April 3, 2012, in collusion with H and I in violation of the above duties, the Defendants obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 700 million in P by offering 70 million in share of CO at the office of the above Busan Busan place of business as security and lending 700 million won in F to P, thereby causing damage equivalent to F in the same amount. On April 9, 2012, the Defendants obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 300 million in CO from Q by offering 30 million in share of CO at the above Seoul place of business as security and lending F’s funds to Q.

Television, Defendant A’s crime

Defendant A, as seen above, when the price for the sale of the F’s Seoul Office building, etc. was introduced into F, he had the intention to use it in mind, and around August 1, 2013, Defendant A embezzled the company fund 1,657,350, which was under business custody through the above M in order to pay the credit card price for personal use at the above BB office, by receiving KRW 1,657,350 for personal use.

Defendant A, along with this, embezzled the total sum of KRW 13,66,270 in the same way in Seoul, etc. from Seoul, to September 23, 2013, as indicated in the list of crimes in attached Table 2.

5. Defendant B’s crime

Defendant B, H, and I resolved to waive the benefits from September 2012 to December 2012 by a resolution of the board of directors on September 27, 2012 of F to improve the F’s management balance, but in fact there was no idea to waive the benefits in the future.

Defendant B, in collusion with H and I on October 15, 2012, transferred USD 136,00 (51,030,100) to the Defendant B for the purpose of using 46,000 (51,030,100 won) in the name of the National Bank (Representative S, hereinafter referred to as “R”) under the name of the National Bank (Representative S, hereinafter referred to as “N”) established for the transaction of entertainment at the Seoul, Gangnam-gu L and II, Seoul, and for the purpose of using the F under the name of the National Bank for the supply of entertainment. On the same day, Defendant B arbitrarily paid KRW 3,346,00,00 in the name of V, W,376,40, 300, 36,68, 601, 607, 407, 607, 609, 607, 407, 107, 2007, 407, etc.

In addition, Defendant B, in collusion with H and I, embezzled the total sum of KRW 89,338,200 of the victim’s funds by the same method three times from the Seoul and Busan District through the same method, such as the crime committed in attached Table 3 from around that time to December 18, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. The statement of a witness X in the second trial records, and the statement of a witness M in the third trial records;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of suspect examination of M, Y, and Z protocol of statement by the prosecutor;

1. Each statement of the defendant A;

1. Written statements of AA, X, and Q;

1. An investigation report (Confirmation of the fact of delisting-listing), an investigation report (a copy of the register of the FF accounting auditor's statement, a copy of the audit report), an investigation report (to be accompanied by the statement of the FF accounting auditor's statement, a copy of the audit report), an investigation report (to be heard and arranged by the accounting auditor's statement related to the division of the F financial statements), an investigation report (to be verified by the R processing sales office), an investigation report (a copy of the passbook of the FF bank's corporate account), an investigation report (Attachment of the AA statement), an investigation report (referring to attachment of the relevant document in advance among the suspect A seized articles), an investigation report (referring to attachment of the relevant document in advance), a criminal investigation report (Attachment of the R

1. The F copy of the register, P copy of the relevant published document, all the audit report on the F financial statements, the copy of the audit report on the F financial statements, the copy of the register of the J homepage, the report on material facts on the 21 March 2013 of the Republic of Korea, the report on material facts, the copy of the audit report in 2012 of the Republic of Korea, the copy of the R-related seizure data, the current status of purchase of R-related securities in 2012, the details of deposits, the copy of the passbook, the statement of deposits in August 30, 2011, the copy of the each lending contract entered into J in 201 and 2012, the copy of the each lending contract, the copy of the F-R's goods supply contract, the original corporate accounting standards, the National Tax Service's data, the printed copy of the search data, the copy of the passbook's account and the national bank's account related to the R-B bank's account and the copy of the passbook supply, the bill, the substitution statement, the disbursement statement, the bill, and the bill;

Application of Statutes

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

Defendant A: Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act, comprehensively including the occupational embezzlement on the basis of the facts of the crime in the market on March 1, 300), 20(1), and 13 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 20(4)1 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 (2) of the Criminal Act, Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 535(1) of the Criminal Act.

Defendant B: Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 (1) of the Criminal Act: (a) of the Criminal Act; (b) Articles 20(1) and 13 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies; (c) Articles 30(1) and 13 of the Criminal Act; (d) Article 30 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies; (e) Article 20(4)1 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; (e) Article 30 of the Criminal Act; (g) Articles 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; (g) Articles 356, 35(2), and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; (g) Articles 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; (g) Articles 356, 35(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act; (g) Articles 35(2) and 30 of the Criminal Act.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: The aggravated punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (aggravated Punishment of Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes)

Defendant B: Aggravated increase in concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to advance payment with the largest penalty)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Code (The following consideration shall be taken into account in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration is made for the reason of sentencing)

Judgment on the defendants' and defense counsel's arguments

1. The occupation of embezzlement of KRW 3.3 million due to the voluntary use of company funds, around July 3, 2013 and around July 4, 2013;

A. Summary of the defendant A and his defense counsel

Defendant A received KRW 130 million from F by account transfer around July 3, 2013. However, Defendant A sought explanation from Defendant B that H transferred the money equivalent to the benefits given up through the resolution of the past board of directors in order to repay the money borrowed from others to use it for the company operation funds in the past, and upon receiving the said money, Defendant A received the said money through Defendant B. As such, Defendant A received the said money with the knowledge that it was used for the purpose of repaying borrowed money related to the operation of the company, Defendant A had no intention of embezzlement.

B. Determination

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, it is reasonable to view that Defendant A participated in the crime under the awareness of the crime plan to use 330 million won from F as repayment of the H personal debt unrelated to the operation of the company, and thus, Defendant A and the defense counsel’s above assertion is not acceptable.

① At the time of the first examination of suspect by the prosecution, Defendant A stated that “3 billion won was returned to the company by four officers at the time of the first examination of suspect,” and “the said money was naturally returned to the party that became de-listing due to the return of benefits to prevent the abolition of the listing. 3.” In light of this, Defendant A was aware of the fact that the amount of KRW 130 million received from F was equivalent to the amount of benefits that the Defendants, H, and I resolved to return through the resolution of the board of directors on September 27, 2012, and that Defendant B, H, and I would receive the same kind of money from F.

② At the time of the second interrogation of the suspect, Defendant A, as at the time of this second interrogation, agreed to return the benefits to H and I from January 27, 2012 to September 2012, Defendant A loaned money from H and made it into the company. As such, Defendant A stated that, in order to repay the said money, he was given the company funds to the account in the name of returning the company funds as of the day when delisting becomes final and conclusive, and then given the withdrawal to H. In light of the foregoing, Defendant A was aware of the fact that the amount finally delivered to H, unlike the assertion in this Court, is used as the personal debt repayment for H, which is not related to the company operation.

③ AB auditor was dispatched from the F’s creditors’ Veterans Association to monitor F’s flow of funds, and requested F to immediately withdraw the money from F’s account on July 3, 2013, upon which F had begun to withdraw the money from F’s account, and return F’s money to F’s account. Nevertheless, Defendant A did not return KRW 130 million to F’s account and delivered it to H via F. In light of this, Defendant A had a firm intent to share the performance with Defendant B, H, and I.

2. Violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies due to false preparation and disclosure of financial statements;

A. Summary of the defendant A and his defense counsel

Defendant A created the sales revenue of KRW 1,035,182,314 with respect to BC and then announced in accordance with the financial statements. However, the remainder of the false entries in the financial statements, other than this, was made under the direction of H, and Defendant A was unaware of the false entries. Therefore, Defendant A did not have any intent to commit the crime with respect to the remaining false financial statements, other than the part of the preparation and disclosure of false sales revenue through BC.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, even if Defendant A was unable to accurately know the specific amount of money, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant A had an intentional intent to attract and implement the basic contents of preparing and publicly announcing false financial statements by means of appropriating the sales and purchase amount in excess, and thus, Defendant A and the defense counsel’s above assertion is not acceptable.

① At the time F, in order to prevent the 2012 fiscal year from being evaluated as a timely settlement of accounts and delisting, in addition to the method of counting the sales revenue in excess, the management did not actually return or waive the benefits, and the employees were working in F as if the management returned the benefits or gave up the benefits, and even if the employees were to have paid the benefits through other companies, they used the following methods: (a) as if the employees were retired and did not pay the benefits in F; and (b) the Defendant was well aware of the fact that the Defendant was directly involved in the excessive appropriation of the sales revenue through BC; (c) In light of the foregoing, the Defendant appears to have sufficiently recognized the possibility of the existence of false parts in relation to the sales revenue or purchase amount of the financial statements he did not directly prepare.

As to the prosecutor's question at the time of the second interrogation of the prosecutor's office, "A person who participated in the false preparation and disclosure of consolidated financial statements in the business report of 2012 who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person in charge of the false preparation and disclosure of consolidated financial statements in the business report of 2012, the defendant A and I are deemed to have been naturally aware of the fact that the audit in the business report of 2012 was the most important issue in the company." In light of the above, there seems to be a communication between F management at the time of using any means that the F management should obtain proper opinion in the business audit of 2012.

③ In accordance with F’s disclosure document, the F’s sales revenue in 2012 was roughly KRW 44,936,00,000, and around KRW 28,965,000 in the year 201. In the case of the Pestan earth and sand sector, the sales revenue in 11,12 in the total of 2012 accounts for an abnormal proportion among the sales revenue in the Pestan earth and sand sector. 11) The Defendant A, who was in charge of F’s overall administration of the F’s funds, did not review the false disclosure document even if there were circumstances to doubt an excessive appropriation of sales revenue. 13)

④ At the time of the first interrogation of the suspect, Defendant A stated that “In order to continue to serve as a representative director even though he/she is well aware of the fact, he/she cannot raise an objection to the accounting portion, and thus, he/she has written his/her signature on the public disclosure document.” In light of the foregoing, Defendant A is deemed to have expressed that even if there was a false content on the public disclosure document, he/she would have expressed his/her intention to allow it.

3. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the advance payment to J;

A. Determination as to Defendant A and the defense counsel’s assertion

1) Summary of the assertion

Defendant A was not involved in the rare soil business at all, and there is no doubt about the payment of advance payment to J. In other words, Defendant A did not participate in the act of breach of trust due to advance payment to J.

2) Determination

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, Defendant A and the defense counsel’s above assertion is not accepted, since Defendant A conspired with H, B, and I to commit a breach of trust in violation of the duties of the F’s representative director.

① Defendant A, as the representative director of F, served as the approval of all documents related to the F’s execution of funds. As such, Defendant A had a duty to fully review the possibility of recovery at the time of executing F’s funds and, if necessary, prevent the occurrence of damage to F by securing collateral. Therefore, if Defendant A’s failure to perform the above duties in approving documents related to the execution of funds, thereby causing a risk of property damage or damage to F, it is reasonable to deem that the act of breach of trust is established in itself.

② According to Defendant A’s approval, F paid the advance payment to J in accordance with the aforesaid method, the amount of the advance payment paid to the J in 201 and 2012 reaches KRW 9,385,202,092. 16) was large when considering the F’s total amount of transaction. Therefore, Defendant A was subject to a measure, such as (i) examining whether advance payment based on the business duties of the representative director as seen earlier can be appropriately recovered in the manner of cash return, and (ii) having to be provided with security if it is unclear; (iii) Defendant A did not fully implement the above procedure on the ground that it was not involved in the date determined by H.

③ From among the advance payment of KRW 9,385,202,092 paid by Defendant A with the approval of Defendant A in 201, 2012, F was merely KRW 3,977,778,235 won for the purpose of purchasing rare soil (= KRW 19), 407,423,857 won (i.e., KRW 9,385,202,2092, KRW 3,977,78,235), it was difficult to conclude that Defendant A was recovered by cash return in light of the financial situation of J. (i.e., the possibility of recovery of the said part). However, from the point of view of F, there was a specific risk of property damage to the said part.

B. Determination as to Defendant B and defense counsel’s assertion

1) Summary of the assertion

Defendant B merely executed funds to J under the direction of H without the intention of breach of trust. As such, Defendant B does not constitute a crime of breach of trust due to the said act.

2) Determination

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, Defendant B shall be deemed to have had the intention of breach of trust. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant B and the defense counsel shall not be accepted.

① Defendant B, as a director in charge of finance and accounting specialist of F, served as a practical handling of all funds arising from F. As such, Defendant B had duties to ensure the possibility of recovery at the time of executing F’s capital and, if necessary, to prevent damage to F from occurring.

② Defendant B, as well as the F, was in charge of the overall administration and accounting affairs in the position of the financial director in charge of the Court, it seems well-known whether the advance payment received from F is used for any purpose, and whether the J has the ability to return advance payment.22) In other words, Defendant B seems to perform the work of executing advance payment knowing that considerable of the amount paid from F to J as advance payment is used for the J’s own project without regard to purchase of rare soil.

③ Since Defendant B was a director in charge of the finance of J, it also seems that Defendant B was aware that the advance payment received from J was not timely returned to F when used for its own business expenses. Nevertheless, Defendant B executed advance payment paid to FNJ without any measures such as attaching interest conditions or securing security, and Defendant B had both awareness of the F’s breach of duty as a director in charge of the finance and the risk of property damage that may arise from F.

4. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) concerning the payment of loans to P;

A. Determination as to Defendant A and the defense counsel’s assertion

1) Summary of the assertion

Defendant A did not have any participation in the instant crime and lent money to FP and Q (hereinafter referred to as "P, etc."). There is no doubt about the fact that Defendant A did not participate in the instant crime.

2) Determination

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, Defendant A may sufficiently recognize that Defendant A intentionally participated in the crime of this case in breach of trust, and thus, Defendant A and the defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

① Around April 4, 2013, F entered into a monetary loan agreement with Q Q, a representative director, to lend KRW 700 million to P, and around April 10, 2013, the P, respectively, and as to each monetary loan agreement, the resolution of the board of directors was prepared respectively.25) Defendant A allowed each resolution of board of directors to affix a seal to each resolution of board of directors to the effect that approval of each monetary loan agreement is granted. Therefore, Defendant A did not have any specific perception of the specific circumstances leading up to the lending of money, even though Defendant A did not have any specific perception of the fact of lending money itself.

② Defendant A, as the representative director of the F, served as the F, to approve all documents related to the F’s execution of funds. As such, Defendant A had a duty to fully review the possibility of recovery when executing the F’s funds and to prevent damage to F from securing adequate security. Nevertheless, Defendant A, without entirely examining the possibility of recovery and the value of the co-ownership offered as security in relation to the grant of loans to P, etc., approved the execution of loans without examining the possibility of collection in the future and the value of the co-ownership offered as security, etc., and in itself, Defendant A can be recognized as having violated the duty of representative director, and Defendant A was aware of his breach of duty.

③ In the first interrogation of the prosecution, Defendant A stated to the effect that “I did not know about the company’s funds and approved the execution of all of the funds without any galmatic guidance, because I could not raise any and all the risks of property damage or damage to F due to a violation of duties in the course of performing duties.” In light of the above, Defendant A seems to have expressed to the effect that “I would not have been able to refuse the execution of the funds because I could not raise any profit because I could not raise any profit.”

B. Determination as to Defendant B and defense counsel’s assertion

1) Summary of the assertion

In addition, the decision of the board of directors including H on lending money to P et al. was made, as well as P et al. offered co-owned shares as collateral and presented the accounting corporation's report on the value of co-owned shares. Therefore, it cannot be said that Defendant B, who carried out a loan with reliance on the security value provided by the board of directors and P et al., committed a breach of trust or committed a breach of trust with Defendant B.

2) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, Defendant B did not review the ability to repay debts as a director in charge of financial affairs and did not take reasonable measures to recover debts as a director in violation of the duties of P, etc., and shared the act of misappropriation to lend money, and the act of misappropriation was committed with intent to commit such act of misappropriation. Accordingly, Defendant B and the defense counsel’s above assertion is not accepted.

① When Defendant B executes F’s loan as a director in charge of finance and accounting as a financial specialist, Defendant B had a duty to sufficiently review the possibility of recovery and prevent the occurrence of damage to F by being provided with adequate collateral. Nevertheless, Defendant B instructed H to execute a loan for P, etc., Defendant B executed a loan without a specific plan for collection of the loan, and Defendant B was also a person in charge of this fact.29)

② As seen earlier, Defendant B, who had occupational duties, had closely examined the debtor P, etc.’s ability to repay debts in executing a loan in the name of F, but did not review this. As a result of the ex post evaluation conducted by the Han accounting corporation, it was found that the annual sales of P are merely KRW 100-20 million, and thus, the loan repayment ability was weak. 30) As a result, F did not receive partial refund from P, etc. of the principal and interest of the loan from P, etc.

③ P et al. demanded to lend money to F under the condition that Co-ownership shares are offered to F as security, and submitted a report on corporate value assessment of 300 million won per share as documentary evidence.32) However, the said report is not entirely reflected in financial situation in 2011, and only reflects the future profit value of Co-American as of December 201, 201. Therefore, it is inappropriate to take it into account as of April 201 as of the point of lease.33), however, even according to Defendant B’s statement itself, Defendant B did not review the contents of the said report and executed only loans according to H’s instructions without examining the contents of the said report. 34)

④ Defendant B stated to the effect that the F would have been able to participate in the optical cable construction run in Saudi Arabia, without doubt, that the F would have been able to take part in the optical cable construction run in Saudi Arabia. 35) Defendant B, a director in charge of finance and accounting, could be an important standard for assessing the security value of co-ownership. Thus, Defendant B, a director in charge of finance and an accounting expert, was on duty to seriously examine this. Nevertheless, Defendant B took part in the execution of a loan to P et al. (F obtained a construction license from both Korea and Saudi Arabia to be registered as a local subcontractor (the F would have been impossible to obtain a construction license within a short period of time). Thus, Defendant B, a director in charge of finance and an accounting expert, was unable to realize the said contents).

5. The point of occupational embezzlement from August 1, 2013 to September 23, 2013

A. Summary of the defendant A and his defense counsel's assertion

Defendant A’s arbitrary use of KRW 3,348,00 (number 2) paid on August 13, 2013, among the money received from Defendant F’s account, as indicated in the attached Table 2, for personal travel expenses. However, Defendant A cannot be deemed as Defendant A’s voluntary use of the money, as the sum of KRW 1,657,350 (number 1), paid on August 1, 2013, KRW 2,783,450 (number 3), paid on August 23, 2013, KRW 652,40 (number 4), KRW 2,43,500 (number 4), and KRW 2,500 (number 5) paid on August 26, 2013, KRW 2,433,500 (number 5), and KRW 1,571,708 (number 1,57,708).

B. Determination

If a representative director of a corporation withdraws and uses the company's money, and fails to present evidentiary materials as to the place of use, and fails to provide reasonable explanation as to the grounds for withdrawal and the place of use, he/she may withdraw the company's money with the intent of unlawful acquisition and use it for personal purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9250, Mar. 27, 2008);

The following circumstances acknowledged by the record of this case in light of the above legal principles, i.e., (i) Defendant A was paid the credit card price in the name of an individual as indicated in the facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the management director M, 37). (ii) Defendant A had used part of KRW 10,318,270 of the credit card price received from F (No. 2 crime list, No. 1, No. 3, No. 3, No. 4, 5, and 6) for the operation of F; (iii) there was no proof or submission of evidence in detail as to the use of the above money for any purpose from the prosecution to this court; (iv) Defendant A was asked about the details of the use of the credit card price in the third prosecutor’s office at the time of interrogation of the suspect; and (iii) Defendant A was also aware that the entire amount of the credit card price was used for personal purposes as indicated in the separate crime No. 2 crime No. 13,66,270 won.

Therefore, the defendant A and the defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

[Defendant A]

1. The scope of punishment: Imprisonment for not less than two years and six months but not more than twenty-two years and six months;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

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

[Determination of Punishment] Embezzlement and Breach of Trust, and Type 4 (not less than five billion won but less than ten billion won)

[Special Mitigation] Where the degree of violation of duties is minor;

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and not more than five years;

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

[Determination of Type] Securities Financial Crime Group, Offenses against the Transparency of the Capital Market, Type 2 (Preparation and Publication of False Financial Statements for Breach of Duty of Disclosure, such as Securities Report, etc., and Misappropriation and Alteration of Accounting Information)

[Special Mitigation] Where there is a reason to take special account of the motive for the crime

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] The range of punishment shall be not less than four months but not more than one year. Application of multiple crime processing standards: Imprisonment for not less than two years and not less than six months (in the case of violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies due to the Preparation and Publication of False Financial Statements, the upper limit of sentence scope of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies due to the Preparation and Publication of False Financial Statements shall be added to 1/2. However, each of the above crimes is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crime of violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies due to interference with audit for which

(d) Adjustments according to legal penalty: Imprisonment for not less than two years and not more than six months but not more than 22 years and not more than six months;

3. Determination of sentence: The representative director of a three-year company has a significant impact on the financial status of shareholders while making a decision on all important matters arising from the company and doing legal acts on behalf of the company. Thus, he is not liable. However, even though the representative director of the F, who was the company, was faced with difficulties leading to delisting by the company, Defendant A is not only engaged in the risk of property damage or damage exceeding 6 billion won in the company due to voluntary use of the company fund or occupational breach of duty causing damage to the company, but also is consistent with the responsible attitude that the H, who is the other representative director, was not responsible for most crimes even after the crime. In addition, Defendant A made a false disclosure of financial statements to the public, thereby impairing the fairness of securities transaction and the trust of general investors in the securities market, and in light of this, Defendant A is subject to a severe sentence of punishment as to Defendant A.

However, with the exception of the part of the amount partially embezzled by Defendant A, it seems that there is no economic benefit due to each of the crimes of this case, and the crime of embezzlement, which Defendant A has gained economic benefit as above, was committed in a situation where benefits are not paid properly, the primary offender is the first offender, and all of the sentencing factors in the arguments of this case, including the age, character and conduct, family environment, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered by the Disposition.

[Defendant B]

1. Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and not more than six months but not more than two years and not more than six months;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

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

[Determination of Punishment] Embezzlement and Breach of Trust, and Type 4 (not less than five billion won but less than ten billion won)

[Special Mitigation] In a case where passive crimes caused by pressure, etc. are held and the degree of violation of duties is insignificant.

【Decision on the Recommendation Area】 Special mitigation Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and not more than five years;

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

[Determination of Type] Securities Financial Crime Group, Securities Market Violation Act, Securities Report, etc., Duty of Disclosure and Disclosure, Preparation and Disclosure of False Financial Statements, Accounting Information and Alteration

[Special Mitigation] In a case where there is a reason to take into account the passive participation in the crime by pressure, etc. and the motive for the crime.

【Decision on the Recommendation Area】 Special mitigation Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two months but not more than one year. Application of multiple criminal processing standards: Imprisonment for not less than one year and not less than three months (in the case of violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies due to the preparation and disclosure of false financial statements, 1/2 of the maximum sentence scope of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies due to the preparation and disclosure of false financial statements shall be added to the maximum sentence scope of the crime of violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, which is a basic crime: Provided, That each of the above crimes is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal

(d) Adjustments according to legal penalty: Imprisonment for not less than two years and not more than six months but not more than 22 years and not more than six months;

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and six months, and three years of suspended sentence; and

Defendant B, as a director in charge of financial affairs of F, violated the above duties and caused the risk of property damage or damage exceeding KRW 6 billion to F due to the act of arbitrarily using company funds, etc., although there was a occupational duty to prevent the outflow of company funds as a director in charge of financial affairs of F, and thereby, damaged the fairness of securities transactions and the trust of general investors in the soundness of the securities market by the act of disclosing false financial statements. In light of this point, Defendant B should be strictly punished.

However, the defendant B shows the attitude of responsibility to repent of mistake while making a confession of a considerable part of the crime. The defendant B appears to have been in a weak position than the representative director. The defendant B appears to have not obtained economic benefits due to each of the crimes of this case except for the part partially embezzled money. The crime of embezzlement that the defendant B has gained economic benefits as above was committed in a situation where benefits are not paid properly, the primary crime is the first crime, and all of the sentencing factors shown in the arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, family environment, and circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively considered.

The acquittal portion

1. The possession of Defendant A’s occupational embezzlement of KRW 89,338,200 due to the voluntary use of company funds from October 15, 2012 to December 18, 2012

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant A, H, I, and B resolved to waive the benefits from September 2012 to December 2012 by a resolution of the board of directors on September 27, 2012 to improve F’s management balance, but in fact there was no idea to waive the benefits in the future.

Defendant A conspired with H, I, and B on October 15, 2012, in order to transfer USD 136,00 (51,030,100) to the National Bank Account in the name of the Republic of Korea established in the name of the city in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Busan, and Busan, and to the National Bank Account in the name of the State Bank Account (Account Number T) established in the name of the Republic of Korea for the transaction of rare soil. On the same day, Defendant A conspired with H, I, and B to transfer USD 46,00 (Account Number U) from the above account to the National Bank Account in the name of R, and then, Defendant A received KRW 11,376,40, KRW 1,680, KRW 300, KRW 11,376,40, KRW 400, KRW 1376,40, KRW 400, KRW 308, KRW 208, KRW 209, KRW 37,2937,2037, etc.

B. Defendant A and defense counsel’s assertion

Defendant A, regardless of the resolution of the board of directors, promised to be responsible and paid by H to pay benefits, was paid by R as promised by H, and was not aware of the source of benefits is F. In other words, Defendant A did not have an intention to embezzled F’s property.

C. Determination

The establishment of facts constituting a crime in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have such convictions as to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such convictions may lead to such convictions, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006; 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 201). In light of the above legal principles, it shall be examined whether the defendant A may be found guilty of the facts constituting a crime.

The following circumstances acknowledged in the records of this case, i.e., (i) Defendant A consented to the resolution of the board of directors against the entity that would waive the benefits from September 2012 to December 12, 2012; (ii) the R paid to Defendant A from September 2012 to December 2012 was one of the sales partners mobilized in 2012; and (iii) the R’s payment of benefits was made for more than two months from October 15, 2012 to December 18, 2012, and Defendant A was regularly limited to or contacted with H, and thus, Defendant A was likely to have talked about the source of the money during the said period. In light of the fact that Defendant A and H had received benefits from September 2012, 200, Defendant A did not have any awareness that the amount of money was somewhat less than the sales partners.

However, according to the records of this case, the following facts are also acknowledged: (a) Defendant A consistently asserted to the effect that the prosecutor did not know the circumstances that the F would have been paid with F’s money from the prosecution to the court; (b) Defendant A was aware that the F would have been paid with R’s money; (c) there was no direct evidence proving that Defendant A would have been paid with F’s money; and (d) Defendant A’s benefit passbook entered the said money as “R”; and (c) Defendant A paid the said money to Defendant A was one of the sales agencies mobilized in appropriating F’s excessive appropriation of sales; (d) Defendant A was primarily in charge of steel division; (e) Defendant A appears to have never been aware of where the business was mobilized for false transactions; and (e) in light of such circumstances, there is no reasonable doubt that Defendant A would have been receiving benefits by embezzlement of F’s property through R; and (e) there is no evidence to prove that there was no reasonable doubt that Defendant A would have been a criminal act.

D. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged against Defendant A 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 Act.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the establishment of the right to collateral security against the Defendants

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant A and H respectively are the F’s representative director. Defendant B and I have a duty to closely examine whether the secured obligation was incurred in connection with the business of the company, and whether there is no possibility of causing additional loss to the F’s assets due to the occurrence of any consequence detrimental to other creditors, etc. when they set up a collateral on the F’s assets as a director in charge of finance and registration.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired with H, I, etc. in violation of the above duties, and thereby, at the Seoul Office on June 28, 2013, the Gangnam-gu Seoul and the second floor, and F was unable to normally engage in business due to the de-listing disposition of the Korea Exchange. Although the liabilities to the Korean Veterans Association, which is the major shareholder and the largest creditor, were not repaid properly, H individual AD Hospital Head with a loan obligation of 2.891 billion won (creditor AF43) and medical device purchase price liability of 4.4 billion won (creditor AG44, hereinafter referred to as “AG”) and KRW 7.3 billion in total, KRW 7.3 billion in total, KRW 7.4 billion in total, KRW 1 billion in total, KRW 4.3 billion in collateral security interest of KRW 7.3 billion in total, KRW 3 billion in total, KRW 4.4 billion in the name of the NA and KRW 1.4 billion in total land and land in the name of the NA and land in the name of the 1.

B. Judgment on the above facts charged against Defendant A

1) Defendant A and his defense counsel’s assertion

Each of the instant mortgages was established by H’s unilateral decision, each of the instant collective security interests, and Defendant A was aware of the fact that each of the instant collective security interests was established. After having known of the establishment of each of the instant collective security interests, H requested H to prepare a resolution by the board of directors concerning the establishment of each of the instant collective security interests and became aware of the fact that each of the instant collective security interests was established. As such, Defendant A did not participate in the act of establishing each

2) Determination

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, it is difficult to view that Defendant A offered a public bid for, or participated in, the establishment of each of the instant collective security interests with H, I, B, and each of the instant collective security interests to the extent of excluding a reasonable doubt.

① Defendant A asserted from the prosecution that H was aware of the fact that each of the instant collateral security was established after the establishment of the instant right to collateral security from the prosecution to this court. Defendant AD head AE, who was granted all the authority regarding the establishment of the right to collateral security from AF and AG, made a decision with the prosecutor, also made a statement consistent with the Defendant A’s argument to the effect that there was no fact with Defendant A in relation to the establishment of the right to collateral security from the prosecution.

② At the time of interrogation of the fourth public prosecutor’s office, B stated, “At the temporary Seoul office of the building F of AD building F, including Defendant A, H, and I, the three parties including Defendant A, H, and I, created the right to collateral security, and there was a lot of discussion about whether the issuance of the right to collateral security would not constitute a fraudulent act against the Veterans Association.” However, this is the only evidence supporting that Defendant A was aware of the fact before the establishment of each of the instant right to collateral security. However, the above statement was in the form of each of the instant public prosecutor’s offices. However, the court stated that “B was a meeting made once in relation to the establishment of the right to collateral security with H, I, but it was after the establishment of the right to collateral security.” Thus, it seems that the credibility of the above prosecutor’s statement in B was not high.

③ There was no record of the minutes of the board of directors regarding the establishment of each of the instant collective security rights, and there was no record that Defendant A signed or sealed the documents necessary for the establishment of collective security rights.

(2) Defendant A appears to have worked mainly at the Seoul Office with H, I, and B at the time of the establishment of each of the instant collective security rights, but it is difficult to view that Defendant A was proven without any reasonable doubt that Defendant A knew of the facts and relevant circumstances of the establishment of each of the instant collective security rights.

C. Judgment on the above facts charged against Defendant B

1) Defendant B and defense counsel’s assertion

Defendant B performed the detailed business of establishing each of the instant collateral security rights upon the direction of H, but was unaware of the fact that each of the instant collateral security rights was established for the purpose of securing the obligation of H individuals, not the company. As such, Defendant B did not have the intent of breach of trust.

2) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of the instant case, it is difficult to deem that Defendant B knew of the fact that each of the instant collateral security interests was established for the sake of securing the H individual’s obligation, and there was a proof to exclude a reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize Defendant B’s intentional breach of trust.

① Upon the direction of H, Defendant B, the representative director of F, handled the establishment of a collateral security with respect to the obligation under a medical device sales contract concluded between F and AG, with respect to the right to collateral security in the name of F, and with respect to the right to collateral security in the name of AG, Defendant B dealt with the obligation under a medical device sales contract concluded between F and F as a collateral obligation. Defendant B has consistently asserted to the effect that, with respect to the right to collateral security in the name of F, Defendant B dealt with the affairs of collateral security by knowing that the aforementioned contract was actually concluded between F and AF and AG.52

② In relation to the creation of each of the instant collective security claims, F and F, a document supporting the existence of the secured claims, which was prepared by AE through a certified judicial scrivener, and 53) AE asserts that: (a) under the name of AF, the claims for payment by subrogation and acquired F with respect to an scartop goods supply contract in the name of AF were adjusted; (b) However, according to the record of the instant case, the record reveals that: (c) the Plaintiff, a private enterprise run AF, knew of or was aware of the fact that: (d) 493,733,739 won (K&P) on June 5, 2013; (d) 482,846,954,975,97,960 won on behalf of the Plaintiff; (e) 1,043,000 won on behalf of the Plaintiff; (e) 1,000 won on behalf of the Plaintiff; and (e) 2, 2013.

③ As a document supporting the existence of secured claim between F and AG, there was a medical device supply contract prepared by AE through a certified judicial scrivener. However, 56) AE agreed to sell two medical devices equivalent to the sum of F KRW 3.77 billion between F’s representative director H and H, and concluded that the aforementioned contract was prepared.57) Meanwhile, it cannot be concluded that Defendant B was aware that the above contract was false solely based on the facts revealed in the record of this case, and that H, who is authorized to conclude a contract on behalf of F, was established based on the premise that the above contract was true.

④ At the time of the second interrogation of suspect, Defendant B stated, “AE does not provide the company’s factory site as security on the basis of private credit and debt relations with AE,” and 58) at the time of the third interrogation of suspect by the prosecution, Defendant B stated that “H borrowed down payment from AE at the time of the third interrogation of suspect by the prosecution.” However, Defendant B appears to have made the said statement on the mere side of the mere prosecution, and 60) appears to have never been well aware of whether H bears any personal obligation to AE. However, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant B was aware of the circumstances that Defendant B instructed the establishment of each of the instant mortgage for personal debt security purpose.

D. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged against the Defendants 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 Act.

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

Freeboard of the presiding judge;

Judges Park Il-young

Judges Kim Gin-han

1) The occupational embezzlement of the crime V. as indicated in the judgment is the same as the occupational embezzlement of the crime II.1. However, since the method and timing of the crime differ, it is not deemed due to the realization of a single criminal intent.

2) No. 2, No. 1080 of the investigation records

3) The part of the F’s decision to waive is the part of the salary from January to August 2012, which was decided by F’s management to waive, and it appears that Defendant A returned the salary by mistake to September.

5) No. 3, 1317, of the investigation records

6) Title 3, 1225, 1226 of the investigation records

(7) On July 3, 2013, Defendant B stated that Defendant A was issued KRW 130 million as a check after the fact that Defendant A did not have a passbook for withdrawal, and that Defendant B received KRW 130 million as a check (Article 3 of the Investigation Records No. 1124 pages).

8) No. 1066, 1067, No. 3 of investigation records, No. 1317 of investigation records

9) Title IV 1926, 1927 of the investigation records

10) Title 3, 1261, 1262 of the investigation records

11) Defendant B’s legal statement or investigation records No. 62, 247, 253 of title 1.

12) No. 1062, 1063, No. 3, No. 1240 of investigation records

13) Defendant B’s legal statement, No. 1, No. 28 of the investigation record

14) No. 2, 1073, 1074 of investigation records

15) No. 1062, 1063, No. 3, No. 1240 of investigation records

16) Title IV, 1952 to 1960 of the investigation records

17) In principle, advance payments refer to the amount paid in advance for the purchase of goods and raw materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1107, 1538, 1574, supra). As such, advance payments refer to the amount paid in advance for the purchase of goods and raw materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da11107, 1538, 1574).

18) No. 1062, 1063, No. 3, 1313, 1314 of investigation records

19) Title IV, 1952 to 1960 of the investigation records

20) In the case of I, there was almost little operating profit in the case of the other business sector except the rare earth business sector, and there was no other asset to be offered as security (Article 1113, 114, 1575 of investigation records).

21) Defendant B’s legal statement, investigation record No. 1098, 1105, 1106 of the Criminal Procedure Act

22) No. 3, 1114 of investigation records

23) Part III, 1113, 1114, 1575 pages of investigation records

24) No. 3, 1577 of investigation records

25) Title IV, 1941 to 1946 of the investigation records.

26) Title IV, 1935, 1936 pages, 1941 to 1946 of the investigation records

27) Title IV, 1936 of the investigation records

28) No. 2, 1069 of the investigation records

29) No. 1737, 1795, 1796 pages of investigative records

30) A right 1 to 249 of the investigation records

31) Part IV, 1621, 1622, 1740 pages of the investigation records

32) No. 1614, 1615 pages of investigation records No. 4

33) No. 1615 of the Investigation Record No. 4

34) Part IV, 1615, 1795, 1796 pages of investigation records

35) No. 1621 of the Investigation Record No. 4

36) No. 1621, 1653, 1654 pages of investigation records No. 4

37) No. 4, 1931 of the investigation records

38) No. 4, 1931 of the investigation records

39) Defendant B’s legal statement, No. 4, 1928 of the investigation record

40) 2) The Prosecutor stated in the Prosecutorial Office that “Defendant A visited the Seoul Office frequently while serving in Busan, and visited H and A with his/her business conference.” (No. 3 of the Investigation Records No. 1238 pages).

41) No. 4, 1929 of the investigation records

42) Defendant B’s legal statement

43) The AE is the wife of the AE.

44) The AE’s wife AF served as the representative director, and currently, the AE’s wife AH served as the representative director.

45) No. 1077, 1078 of investigative records

16)No. 1292, No. 4, No. 1751 of the investigation records

47) No. 1627 of the Investigation Record No. 4

48) Defendant B’s legal statement

49) Defendant B’s legal statement

50) Defendant B’s legal statement

51) No. 1625, 1626 pages of investigation records No. 4

52) Defendant B’s legal statement, No. 4, 1625 of the investigation record

53) No. 4, 1625 of the investigation records

54) No. 1747 to 1749 of investigation records

55) The prosecutor asserts that Q Q made payment for the kinds of entertainment, all of which are false sales places. However, in full view of the circumstances revealed in the records of this case, it is difficult to deem that there is sufficient proof as to the fact that Q Q is a false sales place in the case of the remaining enterprises except the K&C sbs.

56) No. 4, 1626 of the investigation records

57) No. 4, 1751, 1752 pages of investigation records

58) Part III, 139, 1340 pages of investigation records

59) No. 3, 1554 of investigation records

60) Defendant B’s legal statement

A person shall be appointed.