Defendant 1 and 5

Airway;

Law Firm Won, Attorneys Park Han-soo et al.

1. Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) and 5 (Defendant 3 of the judgment of the Supreme Court) are punished by imprisonment for 5 years, by imprisonment for 1 year, by imprisonment for 2 years, by imprisonment for 3 years, by imprisonment for 3 years, and by fine for 10,000,00 won, respectively.

2. Provided, That the execution of each of the above punishment against Defendant 2 for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, and against Defendant 3 for four years, shall be suspended.

3. Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1’s fraud and Defendant 4 (Defendant 2 of the second instance judgment) are acquitted, respectively.

4. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecution against Defendant 1 on the violation of each Labor Standards Act as to Nonindicted 8, 9, and 10 is dismissed, respectively.

[Case 209Gohap1553]

Defendant 1 is the representative director of Defendant 6 corporation, who is a software development and sale business owner and exercises overall control over all the affairs of Defendant 6 corporation, such as personnel affairs, accounts, and finance.

On December 5, 2006, Defendant 2 was appointed as the representative director of Nonindicted 32 Co., Ltd. (formerly, Nonindicted 33 Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted 32”) who is the subsidiary of Defendant 6 Co., Ltd.

Defendant 3 is a registration director and a new business director of Defendant 6 corporation.

On December 23, 2009, Defendant 5 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for a violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) at Seoul High Court on December 23, 2009, and the judgment was finalized on December 31, 200, and jointly operated Defendant 6 corporation with Defendant 1, a mother.

Defendant 6 Co., Ltd is a corporation with the purpose of software development, sale, and lease.

Defendant 1 decided to borrow 19 billion won from Nonindicted 3 on October 18, 2007. On December 14, 2007, Defendant 1: (a) taken over the management right of Defendant 6’s shares 954,070 shares (23% of total issued shares) and 954 shares (23% of total issued shares) from Nonindicted 34, the largest shareholder of Defendant 6’s company; (b) taken office as the representative director and the president; (c) Defendant 4 was appointed as the head of the management planning headquarters; and (d) Defendant 3 was appointed as the head of the new business headquarters; and (e) Defendant 6 corporation was operated with Defendant 5 along with Defendant 5.

1. Violation of the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes Act;

A. Defendants 1, 3, and 5’s conspiracys

In collusion with Defendant 1, 3, and 5 on December 17, 2007, at the office of Defendant 6 located on the fourth floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, in order to pay the above amount of KRW 19 billion between Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, Defendant 1 entered into a modified loan agreement with the head of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company.

As such, the Defendants shall bear the liability under the name of the company for the business affairs of the company, and the bills in the name of the company shall be issued for the business affairs of the company, and shall not be issued for personal purposes, in violation of their duties, they shall make Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. bear the liability for joint and several liability for the personal debt of Defendant 1. The issuance of promissory notes in the name of Defendant 6 Co., Ltd., notarized, thereby enabling Nonindicted 3 to obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount, and the Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. suffered economic damage equivalent to the same

B. Defendants 1 and 3’s conspiracys

On March 26, 2008, Defendant 1 and 3 conspiredd to borrow KRW 1.1 billion from 30,000,000 from 40,000 to 1.1 billion from 30,000 to 1.1 billion from 28,000 to 30,000,000 to 42 of the mutual savings bank, regardless of Defendant 6’s business, Defendant 1 and 3 used the borrowed name as Defendant 6, to repay the loans owed to Nonindicted 42, a mutual savings bank of Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul to 40,000,000 from 20,000 to 30,000 won. On June 24, 2008, “amount of money: 1.6 billion, date of issuance: date of sight, issuer: Defendant 6, and Defendant 1’s promissory note,” and delivered to Nonindicted 30.

As such, the Defendants shall bear the liability under the name of the company for the business affairs of the company, and the bills in the name of the company shall be issued for the business affairs of the company, and shall not be issued for personal purposes, in violation of their duties, they shall make Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. bear the liability for joint and several liability for the personal debt of Defendant 1, and shall issue and notarized promissory notes in the name of Defendant 6 Co., Ltd., thereby enabling Nonindicted 30 to obtain the pecuniary profit equivalent to the same amount, and caused the Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. to incur property damage equivalent to the

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

A. Defendants 1, 3, and 5’s conspiracys

(1) 피고인들은 피고인 6 주식회사의 현금자산으로 피고인 1의 위 190억 원의 개인채무를 변제하기로 공모하여, 2007. 12. 17. 서울 서초구 서초동 ☆☆☆빌딩 4층에 있는 피고인 6 주식회사 사무실에서, 피고인 3은 피고인 6 주식회사의 현금자산이 예치된 ●●증권 계좌에서 41억 5,871만 4,776원, ■■증권 계좌에서 40억 4,931만 2,840원을 인출한 후 그 중 42억 802만 7,616원을 피고인 5가 관리하던 공소외 39 주식회사 명의의 △△은행 계좌로 이체한 다음, 그 중 40억 원을 인출하여 피고인 6 주식회사를 위하여 업무상 보관 중, 그 무렵 위 40억 원 중 30억 원을 사채업자 공소외 3에게 지급하여 피고인 1의 개인채무 변제를 위하여 임의로 사용하여 횡령하였다.

(2) The Defendants conspired as above at the office of the above Defendant 6 corporation on December 20, 207, and embezzled KRW 1.5 billion out of KRW 1.99,958 million out of KRW 4,000,00 paid through capital increase through capital increase by Defendant 6 corporation on December 17, 2007, to the account in the name of Nonindicted Company 39, and immediately withdrawn, and thereafter, during the business custody for Defendant 6 corporation, paid KRW 1.5 billion to Nonindicted 3 of the bond company and embezzled it at will for Defendant 1’s personal debt repayment.

B. Defendants 1 and 5’s conspiracys

Defendant 1 and Defendant 5 had Defendant 6 corporation purchase the unlisted stocks of another corporation, paid only the down payment out of the purchase price as if the purchase price was paid, and offered to use the difference for the purpose of paying the personal debt amounting to KRW 19 billion by Defendant 1.

(1) On February 27, 2008, the Defendants had Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. enter into a contract for acquisition of shares of KRW 1,800,000 from the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 14 Co. 22 to KRW 90% of the shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 14 Co. 22, and withdrawn KRW 2.7 billion from the funds of Defendant 6 Co. 22, and then paid KRW 270,000 to Nonindicted Co. 22 as the down payment, and then embezzled KRW 2.43,00,000 to Defendant 6 for the remaining shares purchase price of KRW 2.2 billion for the sake of Defendant 6’s business, by paying KRW 2 billion to Nonindicted Co. 3 of Co. 14 Co. , Ltd. at around that time, and then, embezzled by arbitrarily using them for Defendant 1’s personal debt repayment.

(2) On March 7, 2008, the Defendants had Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. enter into a share acquisition agreement with the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 15 Co. 22 to acquire KRW 38,334 shares from Nonindicted Co. 22 to KRW 19.17% of the shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 15, 22, and withdrawn KRW 1,1550,000 won of the funds of Defendant 6 Co. 22, and then paid KRW 115,500,000 as the down payment to Nonindicted Co. 22 for the remaining KRW 1,000,000 as the down payment. Around that time, in the course of business custody for Defendant 6, the Defendants embezzled the remaining shares of KRW 1,03,50,000 for Defendant 1’s personal debt by paying KRW 1,000 to Nonindicted Co. 3.

(3) At the office of the above defendant 6 corporation on April 4, 2008, the defendants made a contract for acquisition of shares from the representative director of the non-indicted 16 corporation to 70% of the shares issued by the non-indicted 16 corporation and the non-indicted 23 corporation to acquire 350 million won of shares from the non-indicted 16 corporation representative director of the non-indicted 16 corporation to 70% of the shares issued by the non-indicted 16 corporation. In addition, the defendant 6 corporation's shares issued by the non-indicted 23 and one person from the non-indicted 23 to assign KRW 80,924 shares to KRW 42,50 million of the shares issued by the non-indicted 16 corporation and the non-indicted 26 billion of the total amount of KRW 600 million to the non-indicted 26 billion of the capital of the non-indicted 26 billion company for the purpose of selling the remaining 600 billion won of the capital of the defendant 26.

3. Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 5’s violation of the Commercial Act, false entry in the authentic copy of an authentic deed, and uttering of the original authentic deed;

가. (1) 피고인들은 2007. 12. 14. 위 피고인 6 주식회사 사무실에서, 공소외 32 주식회사 대표이사인 피고인 2와 피고인 3, 5 및 피고인 6 주식회사가 공소외 32 주식회사의 유상증자에 참여하여 주식인수대금 40억 원을 납입하고, 즉시 이를 인출할 것을 공모한 다음, 같은 해 12. 17. 피고인 6 주식회사의 현금자산이 예치된 ●●증권 계좌에서 41억 5,871만 4,776원, ■■증권 계좌에서 40억 4,931만 2,840원을 인출하여 그 중 40억 원을 공소외 32 주식회사 주금 납입계좌(계좌번호 : 생략)에 주금으로 납입하고 위 은행으로부터 주금납입증명서를 발급받아, 같은 해 12. 18. 의왕시 왕곡동 (지번 5 생략)에 있는 수원지방법원 의왕등기소에서 공소외 32 주식회사의 발행주식 총수를 584,000주에서 850,666주로, 자본총액을 2,920,000,000원에서 4,253,330,000원으로 변경하는 등기신청을 한 다음, 같은 날 위 주금 40억 원을 전액 인출하여 주금납입을 가장하였다.

(2) On December 18, 2007, at the king registry of the above Suwon District Court, the Defendants conspired to make a false payment for the capital stock to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 32 as above, but submit relevant documents necessary for the registration of capital increase, such as a certificate of payment of stock price, to the effect that the 15,000 share price per share was fully accepted by the 266,666 share price per share, and that the above registered public official entered the change in the total number of shares issued and total capital of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 32 in the commercial register, which is the original copy of the notarial deed, and thereafter made the above registry preserve the said commercial register, thereby having the said registry enter the false fact in the original copy of the notarial deed, and exercised the original copy of the notarial deed stating the fact of fraudulent act.

B. (1) On June 16, 2008, the Defendants conspired to the same contents as the above paragraph (a) and withdrawn KRW 4 billion from the account under the name of Defendant 6, and paid it as stock price to the account of the payment of the stock price of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 32, and issued a payment certificate from the above bank on June 17, 2008, and received a payment certificate of the stock price from the above bank, and filed an application for registration by converting the total number of shares issued by Nonindicted Incorporated Company 32 from the above Suwon District Court's registry office from KRW 850,66 to KRW 117,32 shares, from KRW 4,253,30,00 to KRW 5,586,60,000, the total amount of shares issued by the above Suwon District Court to KRW 4,000 on KRW 4,000 on the same day.

(2) On June 17, 2008, at the king registry of the above Suwon District Court, the Defendants conspired to make a false entry in the original copy of the notarial deed by submitting documents necessary for the registration of capital increase, such as a certificate of payment of stock price, to the effect that the 15,000 share price per share was fully accepted by the 266,666 share price per share, even though the 15,000 share price per share was to be paid by the public official who was unaware of such circumstances, and had the above registered public official enter the change in the total number of shares issued and total capital of the notarial deed in the commercial register, which is the original copy of the notarial deed, into the commercial register, which is the original copy of the notarial deed, and thereafter had the above registry keep the notarial deed, and exercised the original copy of notarial deed

4. Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act by Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 stock companies.

A. Defendant 1

피고인 1은 2008. 11.경 피고인 6 주식회사 제9기, 2008년 제3분기 보고서를 작성함에 있어, 사실은 2008. 8. 20.경 ▲▲은행으로부터 10억 원을 신용대출받아 피고인 6 주식회사 명의 계좌에 입금한 직후 즉시 위 10억 원을 현금인출하여 그 중 2억 2,000만 원을 급여 등의 명목으로 지출하고, 나머지 7억 8,000만 원은 회계처리를 할 수 없는 알 수 없는 용도로 사용하는 등 피고인 6 주식회사는 보관중인 현금이 전혀 없고, 공소외 39 주식회사에 18억 원을 대여한 사실이 없음에도 불구하고 피고인 6 주식회사 위 각 보고서 대차대조표상에 현금 및 현금성자산을 11억 9,400만 원으로, 단기대여금 27억 4,000만 원 중 18억 원을 특수 관계회사인 공소외 39 주식회사(당시 변경 후 상호 공소외 42 주식회사)에 대여한 것처럼 허위로 반기 및 분기보고서를 작성하고, 위와 같은 허위 내용을 기재한 반기 및 분기보고서를 2008. 11. 14. 금융감독원에 제출함으로써 피고인 6 주식회사의 반기 및 분기보고서를 허위로 기재하였다.

B. Defendant 6 corporation

Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. entered the above half-yearly and quarterly reports in relation to the business of Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. at the time, place, and Defendant 1, the representative director of Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. in a false manner.

[2010Gohap62]

Defendant 1 is an employer who operates software development and sales business by employing 40 full-time workers at Defendant 6 corporation with three floors in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 1 omitted) ○○○ building.

Defendant 1, on September 30, 2008, did not pay the total amount of KRW 217,89,453, including wages, retirement allowances, annual allowances, etc. to 25 workers from the date of retirement to January 31, 2009, as shown in the separate crime list, to Nonindicted 43, retired while working in the above company, within 14 days from the date of retirement of each worker, without agreement on the extension of the payment date.

[Case 209Gohap1553]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 5;

1. Each statement by the witness, Nonindicted 37, and Defendant 3

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the prosecution against the defendant 3 (Evidence No. 118, 119, 142 of the evidence list of 209Dahap1553 of the case), defendant 5 (including sub-pledges, No. 128 of the same list), and non-indicted 22 (No. 137 of the same list), and non-indicted 23 (No. 138 of the same list)

1. Each police's suspect interrogation protocol concerning Defendant 3 (including sub-pledges, Nos. 78,97), Defendant 2 (No. 75), and Nonindicted 22 (No. 81) and Nonindicted 37 (No. 82)

1. Each police protocol on Defendant 2 (No. 19 of the same list), Defendant 4 (No. 57 of the same list), Nonindicted 44 (No. 13 of the same list), Nonindicted 45 (No. 35 and 43 of the same list), Nonindicted 22 (No. 50 of the same list), Nonindicted 23 (No. 62 of the same list), Nonindicted 37 (No. 71 of the same list), Nonindicted 46 (No. 90 of the same list), and Nonindicted 3 (No. 98 of the same list)

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 44 (No. 133 in the same list), Nonindicted 45 (No. 134 in the same list), and Nonindicted 22 (No. 143 in the same list)

1. Information letter (No. 2, No. 32, a copy of the register of the non-indicted 32 corporation (No. 51,53, and 65 of the same list), a receipt (No. 15 of the same list), a quarterly report (No. 16 of the same list), a halfyearly report (No. 17,31 of the same list), an investigation report and documents attached thereto (No. 18 of the same list), two copies of a loan document (No. 24 of the same list), a stock sales contract (No. 51 of the same list), a confirmation document (No. 52 of the same list), a list of non-indicted 6 corporation and a quarterly report (No. 15 of the same list), a list of non-indicted 39 (No. 84 of the same list), and a list of the non-indicted 939 projects (No. 194 of the previous list), the list of the co-indicted 208 corporation and the list No. 3949 of the two projects (394).

1. Before judgment: Criminal records (No. 116 No. 116 of the same list) and investigation reports (No. 136 of the same list);

[2010Gohap62]

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Examination protocol of Defendant 1 by prosecution (No. 35 No. 5 of the evidence list in the case No. 2010 and 62)

1. A written confirmation of delayed payment of wages (Nos. 8, 9, 11, 14, 16);

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

A. Defendant 1: Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of occupational breach of trust with respect to Nonindicted 3; the choice of limited term); Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 356, 35(2), and 30 (the occupation of occupational breach of trust with respect to Nonindicted 30); Article 3(1)2 of the Criminal Act; Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 (Embezzlement) of the Criminal Act; Articles 628(1) and 62(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 28(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 (Selection of Imprisonment with Labor; Article 28(1) and Article 30 (2) of the former Securities and Exchange Act; Article 28(1) of the former Labor Standards Act; Article 29-1 of the former Labor Standards Act

(b) Defendant 2: Articles 628(1), 622(1), 30(a) of the Criminal Act, Article 228(1), 30(a), 30(a), 228(1), 30(a), 229, 228(1), and 30(a), 228(1), and 30(a) of the Commercial Act (a point of exercising the original copy of an authentic deed; a choice of imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

C. Defendant 3: Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of breach of trust with respect to non-indicted 3, the choice of limited term of imprisonment); Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 (the occupation of breach of trust with respect to non-indicted 30) of the Criminal Act; Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 (Embezzlement) of the Criminal Act; Articles 628(1) and 62(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 (1) and Article 30 (2) of the Criminal Act; Article 28(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 29(3) of the Criminal Act

D. Defendant 5: Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of occupational breach of trust, the choice of limited term of imprisonment), Articles 3(1)2 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 35(1), and 30 (Embezzlement) of the Criminal Act, Articles 628(1), 62(1), 622(1), Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 228(1), Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 30 (1), 229, 228(1), and 30 (the occupation of payment place, the choice of imprisonment place), each of Articles 228(1), 30 (the occupation of false entry of the original of a notarial deed, the choice of imprisonment place, and the choice of imprisonment)

(e) Defendant 6 Stock Company: Articles 215, 207-3 subparag. 2 and 186-3 (a false entry in half-yearly and quarterly reports) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Addenda to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, effective February 3, 2009)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 5: The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act [the above crimes and the violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [a person who commits concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated in the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) concerning Non-Indicted 3 with the largest punishment];

B. Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the Commercial Act of June 16, 2008, which is the most severe punishment and punishment)

(c) Defendant 3: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) with respect to Non-Indicted 3 with the largest penalty]

(d) Defendant 5: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which is the largest penalty);

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 3: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the following circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Defendant 1: Article 57 of the Criminal Act (The number of days of detention before the pronouncement of this judgment is included in the whole principal sentence, and it is not separately prescribed in the text)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 2, Defendant 3: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (The following consideration has been made for the reasons for sentencing)

1. Defendant 1

Defendant 1 did not have any particular criminal record prior to the instant crime, and Defendant 5’s participation in the instant crime led by Defendant 5, which was the fraud, did not have any favorable circumstances for the said Defendant.

However, in light of the fact that Defendant 1’s representative director of Defendant 6 Co., Ltd., without a special fund-raising plan, accepted Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. using the bonds without a special fund-raising plan, and caused enormous damages to the company by embezzlement of large amount of company funds to repay the bonds, Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. due to Defendant 1’s crime of this case, which was ultimately delisting, and thereby, Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. suffered significant damages to the shareholders and employees of Defendant 6 Co., Ltd., and most damages incurred from the instant crime were not recovered, Defendant

In consideration of the various circumstances shown in the trial process of this case, such as Defendant 1’s age, character, conduct, career, and family relationship, the following sentence shall be determined within the scope of the recommended sentence.

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years but not more than 11 years and not more than 3 months;

[Special Person] Where the victim causes serious damage, and the method of crime is very poor;

[Scope of Recommendation] Embezzlement/Misappropriation crime group, Type 4 (at least five billion won, at least 30 billion won, and less than KRW 30 billion), increased area, double-income concurrent crimes for which no sentencing guidelines are set, imprisonment with labor for not less than five years, but not more than 22 years and less than six months.

[General Persons] In the event of embezzlement

[General Mitigation] No criminal record

[Determination of Sentence] Other conditions of sentencing as shown in the trial process of this case, five years of imprisonment within the scope of recommendation, taking into account the various factors of sentencing

2. Defendant 2

Defendant 2 as the representative director of Nonindicted 32 Co., Ltd. is a large amount of KRW 8 billion, which is disadvantageous to Defendant 2.

However, the non-indicted 32 Company was merely a company with no employee or sales, and the actual management of the non-indicted 32 Company was Defendant 5. The defendant 2 did not receive any payment as a representative director in the form of the form. The defendant 2 refused to withdraw the subscription price for new shares issued by the non-indicted 32 Company. The defendant 2 reported the crime of this case to the investigative agency after his withdrawal to prevent any further damage, and other circumstances revealed in the trial process of this case, such as the defendant's age, character, conduct, and career, determined the sentence as ordered, and the execution of the sentence shall be suspended only once.

3. Defendant 3

Defendant 3's participation in the crime by Defendant 1 and 5 and suffered enormous damages to Defendant 6 corporation is an unfavorable circumstance.

However, Defendant 3 was an employee subject to Defendant 1 and 5’s instructions; Defendant 3 did not obtain any benefit from the crime of this case; Defendant 3 did not have any record of criminal punishment before the crime of this case; Defendant 3 is seriously against the crime of this case; and Defendant 3’s age, character and conduct, career, etc. are determined within the scope of the following recommended sentence, and the execution of the sentence is suspended only once, in consideration of various circumstances revealed in the trial process of this case.

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment of not less than 2 years and 6 months but not more than 22 years and 6 months;

[Special Person] When the victim has caused serious injury to the victim

[Special Mitigation] In a case where passive participation in a crime by pressure, etc. and the degree of violation of duties are insignificant;

[Scope of Recommendation] Embezzlement/Misappropriation crime group, Type 4 (at least five billion won, at least 30 billion won, and less than 30 billion won), mitigation area, dual-party concurrent crimes for which no sentencing guidelines have been set, imprisonment with labor for not less than two years and not more than 22 months.

[General Persons] In the event of embezzlement

[General Mitigation] In a case where most of the proceeds of crime are not consumed and not retained, it shall not be serious reflective, negative or criminal punishment;

[Determination of Sentence] Other various sentencing conditions shown in the trial process of this case, two years and six months of imprisonment within the scope of the recommended sentence, taking into account such various sentencing conditions.

4. Defendant 5

Defendant 5, one’s mother, led Defendant 1 to commit the instant crime, such as taking over a company’s company and embezzlement of company funds, etc., Defendant 6 Company was ultimately delistingd due to Defendant 5’s instant crime, which resulted in considerable damage to the shareholders and employees of Defendant 6 Company. Defendant 5 had been subject to criminal punishment twice prior to the instant crime. Defendant 5 also was in the first instance trial on the criminal facts of the previous crime, and did not entirely reflect on the instant crime, such as committing a crime committed during the period of suspension of execution of the punishment for the crime punished before the previous crime, and committing a crime committed during the period of suspension of execution of the punishment for the crime punished before the previous crime. However, in light of the following facts, Defendant 5 made a false statement on the degree of his participation in the instant crime, and transferred his responsibility to other accomplices, and most losses incurred from the instant crime were not recovered, Defendant should be sentenced to a heavy sentence, and Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of up to 31 years under the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years but not more than 22 years and not more than six months;

[Special Person] Where the victim causes serious damage, and the method of crime is very poor;

[Scope of Recommendation] Embezzlement/Misappropriation crime group, Type 4 (at least five billion won, at least 30 billion won, and less than KRW 30 billion), increased area, double-income concurrent crimes for which no sentencing guidelines are set, imprisonment with labor for not less than five years, but not more than 22 years and less than six months.

[General Persons] In the event of embezzlement

[Determination of Sentence] Other conditions of sentencing as shown in the trial process of this case, five years of imprisonment within the scope of recommendation, taking into account the various factors of sentencing

1. Violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) by Defendant 4 (part of the case in 2009Gohap1553);

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 4 had Defendant 1, 5 and Defendant 6 purchase the unlisted stocks of another corporation; paid only the down payment out of the purchase price as if the purchase price was paid; Defendant 1 conspired to use the difference for the purpose of repaying personal obligations, etc. of Defendant 1; Defendant 4 selected Nonindicted Company 14, Nonindicted Company 15, and Nonindicted Company 16 and followed preparation procedures such as requesting the accounting firm to assess the stock value of each company.

(1) In collusion with Defendant 1 and 5, on February 27, 2008, Defendant 4 had Defendant 1 and 5 enter into a share acquisition contract with the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 22 from the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 14 to KRW 90 billion of the shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 22, to acquire KRW 1.8 billion of the shares from Nonindicted Co. 22 to KRW 2.7 billion of the shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 22. Defendant 6 withdrawn KRW 2.7 billion of the funds of Defendant 6 Co. 22, Defendant 22 paid KRW 2.430 million of the remaining shares as contract deposit. At around that time, the remaining shares purchase price of KRW 2.43 billion of the shares was kept in business for Defendant 6 Co. , Ltd., and embezzled by arbitrarily using it for Defendant 1’s personal debt repayment.

(2) In collusion with Defendant 1 and 5, on March 7, 2008, Defendant 4 had Defendant 1 and 5 enter into a share acquisition contract with the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 15, to acquire KRW 38,334 shares from Nonindicted Co. 22 to KRW 19.17% of the shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 15, a representative director of Nonindicted Co. 22, to acquire KRW 1150,000,000 from Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 22, Defendant 1 and 5 paid KRW 15,000,000 as down payment, and embezzled the remaining shares to pay KRW 1,000,000 for Defendant 6’s personal debt at will.

(3) On April 4, 2008, Defendant 4 conspired with Defendant 1 and 5, Defendant 1 and 5 paid KRW 250 million to Defendant 6’s office, and had Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. enter into a contract for acquisition of shares of KRW 350 million from the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 16 Co. 23 to KRW 70 million of the shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 16 Co. 23. In addition, Defendant 4 paid KRW 80,924 of the shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 3 and one other for KRW 420,500,000 for the purpose of paying KRW 50,000 to Nonindicted Co. 16 and KRW 260,000,000 for the purpose of paying KRW 1650,000,000 to Nonindicted Co. 23 and KRW 266,000,00,000 for each of the above exclusive contracts.

(b) Markets:

(1) Defendant 4, who requested the investigative agency to evaluate Nonindicted Co. 14, Nonindicted Co. 15, and Nonindicted Co. 16 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 14, etc.”) from the investigative agency to this court, proceeds from the preparation by requesting an accounting corporation to conduct an evaluation, and prepared documents, etc. necessary for acquiring the company; Defendant 6’s fund manager, who was in charge of acquiring the acquisition price of Defendant 6 Co. 14, etc., claimed that the above acquisition price was actually executed; however, the above acquisition price was actually executed, and there was no conspiracy for embezzlement of the acquisition price.

(2) As to whether Defendant 4 conspireds with Nonindicted Co. 1, 5 and Nonindicted Co. 14 in the process of acquiring stocks, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by this court, namely, ① Nonindicted Co. 2 was limited to Defendant 5 in the process of acquiring Nonindicted Co. 14 and Nonindicted Co. 15, and Nonindicted Co. 2 stated that there was no consultation or consultation with Defendant 4 (the investigative record 1767 pages), and Nonindicted Co. 23 only stated that there was no consultation with Defendant 1 or Nonindicted Co. 27 on the sale of Nonindicted Co. 16 (the investigative record 1785 pages), ② Nonindicted Co. 12 was offered a proposal to sell Nonindicted Co. 14 and 15 Co. 2, from around December 207 to the effect that there was no false statement from Defendant 5 to the point of view that Nonindicted Co. 4 did not receive the sales proceeds of Nonindicted Co. 1, 207 as Defendant Co. 1’s new acquisition of stocks.

2. The defendant 1's fraud (the case of 2010Gohap34);

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1 is the chairperson of the construction event, who is a non-indicted 19 corporation located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 2 omitted), and is practically operating the said company.

At the end of November 2006, Defendant 1 introduced Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 13, “Along with Non-Indicted 19 Co., Ltd., which has been awarded a successful bid, due to a lot of profits arising from the bid of the insolvent apartment located in Mag-dong in Mag-dong in Young-si.” However, Defendant 1 requested to raise funds by stating that the bid bond is 150,000 won and less than 150,000 won. Accordingly, Non-Indicted 13, 12 of the same year, Non-Indicted 13, “I may receive a considerable profit if I invest money in money with a company which has been awarded a default on the payment of an apartment in a personal region among the construction works,” and Defendant 1 believed to be the chairperson of the company to invest in the construction cost before this portion, and all of Defendant 1 believed to be the victim.”

However, in fact, at the time of Defendant 1’s operation, Nonindicted Co. 19, which was implemented in Sungdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, did not properly proceed due to unsold housing units and lack of funds, and even if the company received money from the victim due to the absence of funds, it did not have any circumstances to properly implement the business and to reduce the profit.

Defendant 1 received 70 million won from the victim to the deposit account of Nonindicted 13’s △△ Bank on December 14 of the same year.

As a result, Defendant 1 received property by deceiving the victim.

(b) Markets:

(1) As to the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1 asserted that there was a fact that he received money from Nonindicted 12 through Nonindicted 13 from the investigative agency to this court, but there was no memory of Nonindicted 12, and that he did not talk about the investment. The evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case is only a statement at the police of Nonindicted 12, and therefore, it is considered as to its credibility.

(2) In the complaint prepared around May 2008 and the police investigation conducted on July 11, 2008, Non-Indicted 12 stated that "If Non-Indicted 13 has been awarded real estate in a suspected area and invested KRW 1.5 million with the finishing construction cost of the apartment of the mortgaged real estate, 2 billion won would be paid to the company's profit." On the first of December 2006, 2006, Non-Indicted 1 stated that "I would give a lot of profit if you invest in the finishing construction cost at the end of the front time," and that "I will give a lot of profit if you invest in the finishing construction cost at the end of the last time." The defendant 1 stated that "I believe that the president was the chairperson, and that I believe that I would be able to believe that I would be the chairperson of the police station," and that "I believe that the above investigation was carried out on October 24, 2008."

(3) However, upon receipt of the request from Defendant 1 to find out a person who is likely to make an investment due to the shortage of the successful bid price, Nonindicted 13 stated that Nonindicted 12 invested KRW 150,000 in the short bid price. Nonindicted 12 stated that Nonindicted 12 invested only KRW 70,000 among them (the witness’s statement), ② Nonindicted 13 stated to the effect that there was no speech about the investment of this case at the place where Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 12 together with Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 12 (the witness’s statement), ③ Nonindicted 12 made a statement in the witness examination conducted in this court on February 26, 2010, it is difficult to acknowledge that Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 made a statement to the effect that it was difficult for Nonindicted 13 to find that there was no further evidence to acknowledge that Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 13 made a statement on the investment of this case (the witness’s statement to the effect that Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 made a statement to the effect that Defendant 1 were not guilty.).

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant is an employer who operates software development and sales business by employing 40 full-time workers at Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. located in the third floor of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building ○○○○○ Building.

The Defendant, on November 21, 2008, failed to pay the wages of KRW 3,683,32 to the employee Nonindicted 8 retired while working in the above company within 14 days from the date of his retirement from that time to December 31, 2008, and did not pay the total amount of KRW 35,214,807, including wages, retirement allowances, annual allowances, etc., to the three workers within 14 days from the date of his retirement, as stated in the attached Table 2, from that time to December 31, 208.

2. Determination:

The above facts charged are crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the same Act. According to each written withdrawal of the complaint in the preparation of Nonindicted 8, 9, and 10, Nonindicted 8, 9, and 10 can be acknowledged as the fact that they have withdrawn their wish to punish Defendant 1 on May 7, 2010, after the prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, this part of the indictment is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Judges Kim Yong-dae (Presiding Judge)

1) The debtor: defendant 1, 5 (the lawsuit by defendant 1), non-indicted 17 Co., Ltd. (the representative director, non-indicted 35 and non-indicted 38, the husband of defendant 1, is the actual owner), joint and several sureties: non-indicted 35, non-indicted 36 (Defendant 1's husband), defendant 3, and non-indicted 37 (Defendant 1's children).

2) Around December 2007, Nonindicted Co. 32 (the representative director, Defendant 2, and Defendant 5) acquired Nonindicted Co. 39, an entertainment company with Defendant 1’s funds.