Defendant 1 and three others

Maximum management

Law Firm and three others since then

Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for five years, by imprisonment for two years and six months, and by imprisonment for three years and six months, respectively.

However, with respect to Defendant 2, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 2 shall be subject to probation for two years and shall be ordered to provide community service for 200 hours.

【Ground of Case】

The major shareholders management of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, including Nonindicted 2 and 3 (the Supreme Court’s judgment), established a special purpose corporation for real estate execution business (hereinafter “SPC”) by lending the name of an executive officer or employee of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank (hereinafter “SPC”) and managed the seal impression, passbook, etc. of each SPC, and carried out loans to each SPC or loans under the name of executive officer or employee.

Meanwhile, from January 1, 2004 to January 31, 2005, Defendant 1 worked as the chief of the business team, Defendant 2, from January 1, 2004 to November 1, 2004, and the chief of the business team from January 1, 2004 to Defendant 1, and in accordance with the order of the above executives, purchased land or established SPC by giving loans under the name of the executives and employees, and managed the lending business by directly managing the seal impression, passbook, etc. of the PC, and Defendant 3 was the owner of the 6 savings bank from July 25, 200 to November 25, 2008, and Defendant 4 was the owner of the 6 savings bank from June 6, 2002 to June 1, 2006 to the financial institution from June 1, 200 to the bank from June 1, 2006 to the bank from June 1, 2006 to the financial institution’s savings.

[Criminal Facts by Defendant]

1. Defendant 1

The Defendant joined Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank on March 20, 1989 and worked as the manager of the first team from January 1, 2004, while officers, such as Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 3, etc., of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, purchased a real estate development project site by lending the names of executives and employees, or established and operated a real estate implementation project in the process of establishing and operating a PC for real estate. The Defendant used the names of the Defendant and his branch, and took charge of credit business by directly managing the passbooks and seals of PCs.

In the meantime, it was discovered that the Defendant arbitrarily used the total amount of KRW 700 million from around 1998 to August 2004 of the loans in the name of Nonindicted Party 12, etc., which he managed by the Defendant, and when Nonindicted Party 6’s savings bank was closed on January 31, 2005, Nonindicted Party 6 failed to take money and valuables by means of threatening Nonindicted Party 6’s management by using the details of loans in the name of the PC managed by the Defendant, etc. and the name borrowing list.

On February 2, 2005, the Defendant called Non-Indicted 6 Savings Bank and Non-Indicted 3 (years 53) to the victim of Non-Indicted 6 Savings Bank and called, “Non-Indicted 6 Savings Bank shall purchase real estate in its name and carry out real estate business by creating SPC, and manage the relevant passbook and seal with related materials, and file a complaint with the Financial Supervisory Service or an investigative agency and disclose its contents to the press.”

The Defendant threatened Nonindicted 3, as above, received KRW 1 billion from Nonindicted 3, who frightened, around March 2005, at the hotel coffee of Busan Station, around the end of March, 2005.

2. Defendant 2

On August 1, 1990, the Defendant became aware of the fact that Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3, etc., an executive officer of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, who was an executive officer of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, have purchased land or established and lent a SPC under the name of his/her own persons, while becoming a member of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, who became a member of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank from January 1, 2004, and was working as the director of the division of the two team. On November 1, 2004, the Defendant retired from office after receiving KRW 170 million as retirement allowance and retirement consolation money on November 1, 2004.

Since May 205, immediately after receiving KRW 1 billion, Defendant 1’s intimidationd the executives of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, and demanded reinstatement from Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3 of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank from around May 2005, immediately after receiving KRW 1 billion, Defendant 1 had been urged to take money and valuables by threatening Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s large shareholders to purchase land using the name of his seat, establish SPC, operate real estate execution business, etc., and by threatening Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s large shareholders as if they were aware of management at the time of his employment.

From June 2005 to September 2005, the Defendant, through Nonindicted 4, a major shareholder of Nonindicted 6 savings bank and auditor Nonindicted 3 of Nonindicted 6 savings bank, at the time of the time of the Plaintiff’s senior ship and Nonindicted 4, an employee of Nonindicted 6 savings bank at the time of Busan’s non-indicted 6 savings bank, knew of the fact that he made a SPC under the name of an officer or employee at the non-indicted 6 savings bank, extended a loan to the non-indicted 3 to purchase real estate in the name of the borrower or to settle non-performing loans, and extended to the non-indicted 3 on several occasions.

As above, the Defendant, who threatened Nonindicted 3, received orders from Nonindicted 4, who was frightened by Nonindicted 3, on October 2005, followed the passbook and seal in the name of Nonindicted 4’s father, Nonindicted 8, who was 500 million won at the coffee shop near Busan ( Address 3 omitted), in the middle of 2005.

3. Defendant 3

From July 2001, the Defendant entered Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank and worked as the principal agent for a business team. On November 25, 2008, the Defendant left the savings bank on November 25, 2008, and subsequently, Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s officers and employees purchased land using the name of their executives and employees, or established a SPC to engage in real estate implementation business, etc. In order to attract money and valuables by threatening Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s officers and employees as if they were aware of at the time of their employment.

On March 3, 2009, in the vicinity of the Busan (No. 4 omitted), the Defendant issued a large shareholder of Nonindicted 6 savings bank and auditor of Nonindicted 6 savings bank to Nonindicted 3, the auditor of Nonindicted 6 savings bank, and asked the Financial Supervisory Service’s website whether it is legitimate to directly manage the passbook and the seal. Unless 600 million won is known, the Defendant made a copy of the SPC list and the passbook’s passbook. However, Nonindicted 6 savings bank’s SPC will file a civil petition regularly with the Financial Supervisory Service.”

As above, the Defendant, by threatening Nonindicted 3, received KRW 600 million from Nonindicted 3, who frighted to drink, at the △△△△ LLC’s head office located in the headquarters of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, on April 2009.

4. Defendant 4

The Defendant, from February 2002 to June 2006, was a person who had been employed as an employee of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank from around June 2006 as an employee of Nonindicted 11 Savings Bank. Around June 2010, the Defendant did not issue an issuance to Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank. Around June 2010, Nonindicted 11 Savings Bank was aware of the complaint, and was retired from his service, and was able to receive money and valuables by intimidation as if he were to have his officers, a major shareholder of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, who became aware of in the course of his service.

Around July 2010, the Defendant, at a restaurant where the trade name in Busan Jin-gu document is unknown, sent to Nonindicted 6 savings bank’s large shareholders and auditor Nonindicted 3, the victim of Nonindicted 6 savings bank, saying, “I would know the fact of loans to the Financial Supervisory Service by creating SPC from Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank to the next name, and managing passbooks and seals without giving KRW 500 million.”

As above, the Defendant threatened Nonindicted 3, who frighted, received KRW 500 million from Nonindicted 3’s head office of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s head office located in the △ branch of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s head office on August 2010.

Facts No. 1

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 3 and 2

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 1, 13, and 14

1. Details of the source of funds;

1. Personnel record cards (12 pages of evidence), preliminary records;

Facts of Decision 2

1. The defendant 2's partial statement

1. Each of the witness Nonindicted 3, 2, and 5’s legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused 2;

1. Part of the prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 1, 2, 4, 14, and 5

1. Some of the statements of Nonindicted 4

1. A written statement of Nonindicted 3 (Evidence No. 484 pages)

1. Details of receipt of funds and details of account transactions;

1. A personnel record card (128 pages of evidence);

1. Copy of the document sent to Nonindicted 2

1. A copy of the complaint, a letter of agreement, and a copy of the written withdrawal of lawsuit;

1. Inspector;

Facts No. 3

1. The defendant 3's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 3, 2, and Defendant 4

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant 3;

1. Second prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 4;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 3, 1, 2, and 14

1. A written statement of Nonindicted 3 (Evidence No. 100 pages)

1. The statement of Nonindicted 10

1. Details of the sources of funds, and copies of the slips related to the investment made in the name of Nonindicted 15 and 16 accounts;

1. A personnel record card (136 pages of evidence);

1. A report of investigation (specific date and time of crime);

Facts No. 4

1. Defendant 4's legal statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 3 and 2

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 1, 2, and 14

1. Each written statement of Nonindicted 3 and 10

1. Details of the sources of funds, and copies of the slips related to the investment made in the name of Nonindicted 15 and 16 accounts;

1. A personnel record card (139 pages of evidence);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 350 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 2, 3, and 4: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 2: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following factors for sentencing have been taken into consideration for normal conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing)

1. Probation and community service order;

Defendant 2: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant's assertion;

A. The prosecutorial statement and the written statement with respect to Nonindicted 4 constitute a full-time statement, and it does not constitute “when it is proved that the statement or the written statement was made in a particularly reliable state” under the latter part of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, it is inadmissible as evidence.

B. Of the written statement about Nonindicted 3 and the legal statement of Nonindicted 3, the part that the Defendant transferred from Nonindicted 4 the intimidation is merely hearsay evidence and thus inadmissible.

C. The Defendant filed a civil lawsuit to reinstate Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, and only received KRW 500 million in return for withdrawal of the said lawsuit, and the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right by filing a civil lawsuit cannot be deemed as cases exceeding the permissible scope under social norms, and thus, the crime of conflict is not established.

2. Determination

A. Existence of admissibility of Nonindicted 4’s prosecutor’s protocol and Nonindicted 4’s written statement

The protocol or documents stipulated in Articles 312 and 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act may be admitted as evidence pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. For this purpose, a person who needs to make a statement must appear in the court in the official ruling due to death, illness, or any other cause, and the preparation of the statement or documents must be made under particularly reliable circumstances. Here, the first requirement in this context shall be met even in a case where it is impossible to be examined in the court because the person who needs to make a statement fails to comply with summons of the court even if he/she has a death, illness, or a certain residence, and even if he/she fails to comply with summons of the court and the arrest warrant is not executed, the second requirement shall be deemed satisfied. In particular, the second requirement shall be met only in cases where there is little possibility of false entry in the contents of the statement or the preparation of the protocol or documents, and there is specific and external circumstances that guarantee credibility or voluntariness of the contents of the statement (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do523, Jun. 13, 1995).

In light of the witness summons issued to Nonindicted 4 on July 6, 201, as the director's unknown on July 6, 201, it is impossible to serve the witness summons issued to Nonindicted 4 as the absence of closure on July 18, 2011, and the witness's absence on August 11, 2011. As a result of the detection of Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 4 did not reside at the witness's address, and Nonindicted 4 was issued with a warrant of arrest issued on June 24, 2011, and thus, it constitutes "where it is impossible to make a statement on the court date due to the unknown whereabouts," and this constitutes "where it is impossible to make a statement on the court date due to the unknown whereabouts," and considering the overall purport of the statement even if there are some differences in the detailed contents of the statement, it is recognized that the preparation of the above document was made under particularly reliable circumstances, and thus, the admissibility of evidence of Nonindicted 4's statement and Nonindicted 4's hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

B. Whether the parts of Nonindicted 3’s written statements and the written statements from Nonindicted 4 were admissible as evidence

In principle, the protocol and documents containing the full-time statement or the full-time statement are inadmissible in accordance with the provisions of Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the full-time statement is admissible in accordance with the provisions of Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act only when the person making the original statement is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, residence in a foreign country, or any other reason, and the statement is made under particularly reliable circumstances. The protocol and documents containing the full-time statement are admissible in cases where their admissibility can be recognized in accordance with the provisions of Articles 313 through 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and further, it is exceptionally admissible in compliance with the above requirements under Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9561, Apr. 14, 2006).

Of the statements and the court statements of Nonindicted 3, those of Nonindicted 4 were examined as to whether they were admissible or not, and that Nonindicted 4 is unable to make a statement because of Nonindicted 4’s unknown whereabouts, and Nonindicted 4 prepared a statement that includes the content that the Defendant sent to Nonindicted 3 by the prosecution that “I do not have the right to return to the police,” in light of the fact that Nonindicted 4’s statement was made in a particularly reliable state, the content of Nonindicted 4’s statement is deemed to fall under the time when it was made under a particularly reliable state, and Nonindicted 3’s statement is admissible as evidence pursuant to Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Accordingly, the evidence of each of the above hearsay statements is admissible in accordance with Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

C. Whether the defendant was threatened

The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, namely, ① the Defendant appeared to have been under the name of Nonindicted Party 5’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 5’s statement to the effect that it would inevitably cause the Defendant’s reinstatement to the above non-indicted 6’s employees and employees. However, even if the Defendant retired under the name of 170 million won for retirement allowances and retirement consolation benefits, the Defendant began to demand reinstatement around May 2005. On June 2005, the Defendant sent a letter to the non-indicted 6’s representative director of the savings bank and sent it to the non-indicted 6’s employees to the non-indicted 6’s statement to the effect that the Defendant would not have been under the name of the above non-indicted 6’s own account. In light of the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s withdrawal of the money to the above non-indicted 6’s account, it appears that it would be difficult to accept the Defendant’s demand to return the money to the non-indicted 6’s officer or its officer’s position.

D. Accordingly, each of the defendant's arguments is rejected.

1. Defendant's assertion;

It was true that the defendant filed a civil petition with the Financial Supervisory Service and received money from the non-indicted 3, or that the non-indicted 3 received money first on the condition that the defendant withdraws a civil petition filed by the defendant, and there was no conflict or intimidation.

2. Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e.,: (a) Nonindicted 3 only made a statement on Nonindicted 6’s website to the prosecution that “the Defendant was filing a civil petition on the website of the Financial Supervisory Service; (b) the Defendant kept a list of Nonindicted 6 savings enforcement agencies; and (c) demanded money from the supervisory agencies to be able to know about the details managed by its employees, such as the head of the bank and the head of the bank.” (c) the Defendant demanded money from the Financial Supervisory Service to change KRW 70 million or KRW 80,000,000 after his request, and (d) the Defendant again asked the Financial Supervisory Service to withdraw the civil petition on behalf of 60,000,000,000 won to the effect that “The Defendant received money from 60,000,000 won or more from 60,000 won,” and (e) the Defendant had consistently received money from 60,000,000 won or more.

1. Reasons for common sentencing;

In this case, the employees of the non-indicted 6 savings bank came to gain a large amount of money by threatening the management of the non-indicted 6 savings bank to know about the behavior of establishing and managing the SPC and lending borrowed name loans from the non-indicted 6 savings bank. The defendants acquired a large amount of money by taking advantage of the fact that the defendants did not know about the abnormal business behavior of the bank and make efforts to improve it, and the nature of the crime was very poor, and that the amount of damage caused by each of the crimes of this case exceeds KRW 50 million to KRW 1 billion, the defendants should be subject to strict punishment.

2. Reasons for individual sentencing

A. Defendant 1

It is subject to the unfavorable sentencing condition that the Defendant left to the instant crime without any reflection, even though he voluntarily used the borrowed name loan amounting to KRW 700,000,000, which he had managed, and the Defendant left to the instant crime. The Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime, and the Defendant is subject to the favorable sentencing condition that there was no special criminal conviction in addition to the one-time fine prior to the offense. In addition, the Defendant’s character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., shall be determined by taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc.

B. Defendant 2

Taking into account the favorable sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., taking into account the following factors: (a) Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, the actual victim of the crime of this case, deposited KRW 500 million, which is the total amount of damage, to recover the damage caused by the crime of this case; and (b) the Defendant has no particular criminal record; and (c) further, the sentence such as the order shall be determined by taking into account all

C. Defendant 3

In addition, considering favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., taking into account the following factors: (a) Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, the actual victim of the crime of this case, deposited KRW 420,000,00,000, and partly recovered from the damage caused by the crime of this case; and (b) the Defendant has no special criminal record, the Defendant shall be given the same sentence as the order, taking into account the following factors:

D. Defendant 4

In addition, considering favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, shall be determined by taking into account.

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

Judges Man Chang-soon (Presiding Judge)