Do 2015 1882 A. Violation of the Mutual Savings Bank Act

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

(c) Offering a bribe;

(d) Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlements);

1. (a) b. (c) d. A;

2. B

Defendant A and Prosecutor (Objection against Defendant A)

Attorney C in charge of legal affairs (for Defendant A)

Attorney E, F, G, H, I, J, K (Defendant A)

Attorney M and N in charge of L, a legal entity (for Defendant A)

Attorney P, Q, and R (Defendant A) in charge of legal affairs (with limited liability)

Attorney S (for Defendant A)

Attorney T (Korean Charter for Defendant B)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012-3403, 2014No 2899 decided November 12, 2015 (Joint)

Judgment

May 12, 2016

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal (the statement of the grounds of each appeal submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal is within the scope of supplement to the grounds of appeal) shall be determined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” in this paragraph)

A. misunderstanding the legal principles as to investors under the Mutual Savings Bank Act

Examining the relevant legal principles and the first instance court and the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, it is reasonable to determine that the Defendant was in the position of “an investor” under Article 37(1)1 of the former Mutual Savings Bank Act (amended by Act No. 8522 of July 19, 2007), on the grounds as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, to have convicted him/her of the charge of violation of each mutual savings bank Act (excluding the part on the grounds of innocence) on the grounds that he/she violated the logic and experience legal principles, such as the allegation of the grounds of appeal, and thus, there is no objection by misapprehending the bounds of the due diligence, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or omitting judgment.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly adopted at the first instance court and the lower court’s judgment, it is reasonable to determine that all facts charged (excluding the part not guilty for the reason) of violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Specific Economic Crimes Act”) were guilty on the grounds of the same reasons as indicated in the lower judgment, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the offense of breach of trust and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, in light of the evidence duly adopted at the first instance court and the lower court’s judgment, i.e., the instant judgment on the grounds as indicated in the reasoning of the lower judgment.

It is reasonable to determine that each specific economic crime law violation (Misappropriation) due to the "joint guarantee related to loans" is guilty, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on damages as a requirement for the establishment of a crime of breach of trust by violating the logic and experience rules, such as the allegation of the grounds of appeal.

3) Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s determination is justifiable to have determined that each act constitutes a single crime for the same reason as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, and that each loan constitutes a separate crime of violation of the Act on Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) for each type of loan. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes of breach of trust, such as the assertion of the grounds of appeal.

C. misunderstanding the legal principles on V fund 2.5 billion won embezzlement, etc.

Examining the evidence duly adopted in the first instance court and the lower court’s judgment, it is reasonable to determine that “for the same reason as the judgment of the lower court, in collusion with Defendant Y and embezzlement of KRW 2.5 billion out of the loans of the mutual savings bank No. 5 of June 5, 2006 to Defendant V on the preceding preceding day” was guilty of the facts charged, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of free evaluation of evidence or the trial of evidence, the status of the custodian of the indictment and the status of the accomplice, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

D. Improper assertion of sentencing on the crime of offering bribe

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the record, there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, such as the allegation of the grounds for appeal.

In addition, according to the provisions of Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case of death penalty, imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than ten years, or imprisonment without prison labor, a final appeal for the reason of unfair sentencing is permitted. Thus, the reason that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for less than ten years and that the amount of punishment is unfair in the case of this case, which is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for less than ten years, cannot be a legitimate ground for final appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by a public prosecutor

A. Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the point of violation of the specific economic crime law (Misappropriation of trust)

For the same reasons as the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the defendant's profits derived from the act of breach of trust, which the defendant provided X-owned real estate Eul as security, fall under the case where the value cannot be calculated. Accordingly, the court below ruled that this part of the public prosecution cannot be viewed as a crime of violation of the Act on Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and there is no choice but to be punished as a crime of occupational breach of trust under the Criminal Act. However, the court below sentenced the acquittal of this part of the public prosecution on the ground that the statute of limitations on the act of breach of trust was imposed, and that this part of the public prosecution was instituted after this part of the public prosecution was instituted.

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the relevant legal principles, there is no error in the judgment of the original court by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of the amount of profit in the crime of violation of the Act on Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by violating the logical and empirical rules, such as the allegation of the grounds of appeal.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the following grounds: (a) Defendant A’s partial violation of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) on the ground as indicated in its holding: (b) Defendant A’s loan related to Z; (c) loan related to AAA; (d) termination of a security related to ELIE; (e) loan related to AB loan; and (d) charge of each specific economic crime (Misappropriation) due to AB-related loan; and (e) Defendant AB-related loan. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable; and (e) there is no error of law by violating the logical and empirical rules, such as the allegation of the grounds for appeal.

2) For the reasons as indicated in the judgment below, the court below found that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the facts of the charge of violation of the specific economic crime (Misappropriation) due to the offering of the E.S. ordinary stocks to HK’s Savings Bank as guilty. In light of the relevant legal principles, the court below found this part of the public prosecution not guilty. In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat inappropriate or insufficient, it can be justified to conclude that the evidence of guilt is insufficient, and there is no error of law that affected the judgment by violating the logic and experience law, such as the allegation of the grounds for appeal.

C. The lower court rendered a judgment not guilty on the following grounds: (a) on the grounds as indicated in its holding, Defendant A’s assertion that certain violations of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and violations of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (Embezzlement), such as the list of bypassions, deviates from the limitation of free evaluation of evidence; (b) on the loan-related to the corporation, TwitB’s violation of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) in relation to each particular Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) in relation to the loan of the corporation, and (2) on the charge of the violation of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) due to embezzlement of KRW 2050,000,000,000,000 won (Embezzlement). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable; and (c) on the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the freedom of evidence or by exceeding the limitation of experience.

D. The remainder

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed against the remainder of the judgment of the original court. However, the chief of the appeal and the appeal are not stated in the grounds for appeal against the above part of the judgment of the original court.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kwon Soon-il

[Attachment-dae]

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Shin-chul