Defendant

Defendant

Jin-Jin-Jin

Law Firm Ma school, et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Gohap1770 decided May 12, 2010, 2009 High Court Decision 681 decided May 12, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months and by a fine not exceeding 1,00,000 won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

However, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.

The defendant shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine by provisional payment.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of Non-Indicted 7’s accusation and Non-Indicted 2’s accusation against Non-Indicted 2 on February 25, 2009 shall be acquitted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake

1) As to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act and the accusation due to the complaint under the above Article of the Current Number of Shares

Since the Defendant did not allow Nonindicted 2 to issue the check number to Nonindicted 3, the Defendant deemed that the check possessed by Nonindicted 3 was lost or forged, and filed a complaint against Nonindicted 2 as an offense under the Securities and Exchange Act, and filed a false report for the purpose of payment or suspension of transaction with respect to the check lawfully issued, not for the purpose of making payment or suspension of transaction. Of the facts charged in the instant case, there was an error of mistake in the misapprehension of facts in the lower judgment, which convicted Nonindicted 2 of the facts charged.

2) As to the non-indicted 6 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted 6 Co., Ltd.”)’s accusation, such as the forgery of a promissory note possessed by Nonindicted Co. 6 Co., Ltd.

The Defendant did not permit Nonindicted Company 2 to issue a promissory note to Nonindicted Company 6, and Nonindicted 7 (the representative director of Nonindicted Company 6) concluded with Nonindicted Company 1 through Nonindicted Company 2 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 1”). The Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted Company 2 and Nonindicted 7, has forged each promissory note stated in the facts charged in the name of Nonindicted Company 1 and received it, and then received money from the Defendant by threatening Nonindicted 7 on the ground that Nonindicted 7 had possession of the said promissory note, and filed a complaint against Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 7 for suspicion of forging, fraud, coercion, etc. on the ground that the Defendant decided that he had made the document approving the obligation, and that Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 7 had prepared a document approving the obligation, and thus, Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 7 were contradictory to the statements made by Nonindicted Company 2 and 7 on the particulars of the issuance of the promissory note itself and their statements made in the investigative agency and court are inconsistent. Thus, the Defendant erred in the misapprehension of the facts charged in the lower judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and a fine of 1,500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misconception of facts as to the statement of the number of shares held by Nonindicted 3

원심 및 당심에서 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 각 증거에 의하면, ① 공소외 2는 2001. 1.경부터 공소외 1 회사에서 근무하여 오던 중, 2004년경부터 자금관리업무를 담당하여 오면서 2006.경부터 자신 및 자신의 어머니 공소외 8 명의의 계좌를 이용하여 공소외 1 회사의 자금관리를 하여온 사실, ② 2006. 5. 10.경 공소외 1 회사의 법인계좌 잔고는 마이너스였는데[계좌번호 (계좌번호 1 생략)인 기업은행 계좌(이하 ‘1 계좌’라고 한다)의 잔고는 ‘-50,000,000원’이고{수사기록 별책(이하 ‘별책’이라고만 한다) 12쪽}, 계좌번호 (계좌번호 2 생략)인 기업은행 계좌(이하 ‘2 계좌’라고 한다)의 잔고는 ‘17,528원’(별책 203쪽)에 불과하며, 나머지 계좌는 당좌계좌이다], 공소외 2가 공소외 3으로부터 당일 차용한 160,000,000원 등을 2 계좌로 송금하여 당일 공과금 1,031,740원, 기업당좌 결제 40,800,000원, 하나당좌 대체 115,970,000원 등 회사경비로 사용한 사실(별책 203쪽, 204쪽), ③ 공소외 3은 2006. 3. 10. 공소외 2를 통하여 공소외 1 회사에 30,000,000원을 빌려주었다가 같은 해 4. 3. 공소외 1 회사로부터 31,200,000원을 변제받는 것으로써 공소외 1 회사와 사이에 금전거래를 시작하였는데, 2006. 3. 10.경 공소외 1 회사의 1 계좌 잔고는 ‘-14,000,000원 상당’(별책 7쪽)이고, 2 계좌 잔고는 ‘38,170,000원 상당’(별책 193쪽)에 불과하였는데, 공소외 3이 공소외 8 명의의 계좌로 입금하여 준 30,000,000원이 2 계좌에 ‘피고인 이름으로’ 입금되고, 1 계좌에서 이체된 35,900,000원 등을 포함하여 당일 112,020,000원이 기업은행 당좌계좌로 입금되어 공소외 1 회사의 어음결제에 사용된 사실, ④ 공소외 3이 2006. 4. 3. 대여금을 변제받을 때 ‘(주) 공소외 1 회사’로부터 금원을 지급받았고(증거기록 562쪽), 공소외 1 회사의 1 계좌에는 ‘가수금반제’로 표시된 사실(별책 9쪽), ⑤ 그 후 공소외 3이 2006. 4. 10. 공소외 8 명의 계좌로 28,800,000원을 입금하여 주었는데(증거기록 562쪽), 위 금원 중 28,000,0000원이 같은 날 2 계좌에 ‘피고인 이름으로' 입금되었고(별책 199쪽 주1) ), 그 외에도 공소외 1 회사의 계좌에 피고인 이름으로 입금된 금원 중 실제 피고인이 입금하지 않은 금원이 상당수 있는 사실, ⑥ 공소외 3은 위 2006. 5. 10.자 거래를 제외하고는 2,000,000원 내지 50,000,000원 정도를 빌려주었다가 변제받는 식으로 거래를 하여왔고, 공소외 3이 공소외 8 명의의 계좌로 입금한 금원은 대부분 입금 당일 공소외 1 회사의 계좌로 입금되어 온 사실, ⑦ 2007. 7. 말을 기준으로 하여 공소외 3이 공소외 8 명의 계좌로 입금하여 준 금액과 공소외 8 또는 공소외 1 회사 명의로 입금받은 금액의 차이는 약 1억 원 상당이고 주2) , 2007. 1. 24.경부터 2008. 8. 20.경까지 매달 275만 원 내지 300만 원의 금원이 공소외 8 명의 계좌에서 공소외 3 명의 계좌로 꾸준히 입금되어 온 사실(증거기록 264쪽 이하), ⑧ 피고인은 공소외 1 회사의 자금이 부족하게 되자 자금관리를 담당한 공소외 2 뿐만 아니라 공소외 4 등 다른 직원들에게도 자금을 융통하여 올 수 있도록 독려한 사실이 각 인정된다.

In light of the above facts and the above evidence, Nonindicted Company 1 was unable to pay for the following facts, namely, that Nonindicted Company 2 took out funds from Nonindicted Company 3. The actual amount was used for the settlement of bills, etc. by Nonindicted Company 1; Nonindicted Company 3 was 160,000 won on May 10, 206; Nonindicted Company 1 was 80,000 won on the date of receipt of a statement from Nonindicted Company 1; Nonindicted Company 2 was 80,000 won on the spot of receipt of a statement from Nonindicted Company 6; Defendant was 80,000 won on the spot of receipt of the statement from Nonindicted Company 1; Defendant was 1,000 won on the spot of receipt of the statement from Nonindicted Company 6; Defendant was 1,000 won on the spot of receipt of the statement from Nonindicted Company 3; Defendant was 1,000 won on the spot of receipt of the statement from Nonindicted Company 1; and Defendant was 31,000 won on the spot of payment.

B. Determination of the misconception of facts as to the promissory note delivered to Nonindicted 7 (Nonindicted Company 6)

1) Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the gist of Non-Indicted 7’s accusation against Non-Indicted 7 and Non-Indicted 2’s accusation against Non-Indicted 2 on February 25, 2009, the Defendant prepared a false accusation against Non-Indicted 2 and 7 for the purpose of having Non-Indicted 2 and 7 criminal punishment at the office of Non-Indicted 10 law firm office of the Gu ( Address 1 omitted) on February 25, 2009. The complaint was made in collusion with Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 7 on the part of Non-Indicted 1’s representative director’s company’s company name (“Non-Indicted 1 omitted), such as forging a bill number of KRW 16,00,000 in face value and KRW 16,00,00,000 in face value of Non-Indicted 1’s company’s representative director’s company (hereinafter “this case’s promissory note”) to deliver the bill to Non-Indicted 6’s representative director’s company’s non-Indicted 6’s company’s funds.

However, when the Defendant’s request for payment of funds from Nonindicted Company 1 to Nonindicted Company 2 or its employees at each time was insufficient, Nonindicted Company 2 provided management funds by requesting that Nonindicted Company 2 or its employees, who were in charge of managing the funds from Nonindicted Company 1, borrowed money from KRW 4 billion to KRW 5 billion at each time without the Defendant’s request, and the Defendant was well aware of this fact. In addition, even if Nonindicted Company 2 received a discount or borrowed money from Nonindicted Company 70 billion to KRW 70,000,000,000 from KRW 70,000,000,000 from KRW 70,000,000,000,000 from KRW 70,000,000,000,000 from KRW 70,000,000,000,000,000 from KRW 70,000,00,000,00.

Nevertheless, on February 25, 2009, the defendant submitted the above false statement to the Ansan Police Station as above, and on the 26th day of the same month, the above non-indicted 2 and non-indicted 7 were dismissed by making a statement with the same contents as the above complaint, and the court below found the defendant guilty by taking account of the evidence in its ruling.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) Facts of recognition

According to each evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the following facts can be acknowledged:

(1) Discount of bill.

On July 9, 2008, Nonindicted 7 received promissory notes (amounting to KRW 16 million and face value KRW 50 million) under the name of Nonindicted Company 1, and deposited KRW 58,885,200 (Evidence 314 pages) with the account under the name of Nonindicted Party 2. On the same day, KRW 8 million was deposited into the account of Nonindicted Party 1 Company 1. On the same day, on July 10, 2008, Nonindicted Party 7 transferred KRW 646,800 to the account under the name of Nonindicted Party 8, the mother of Nonindicted Party 2 (Evidence 288 pages), but each of the said promissory notes was paid normally on the date of payment (Evidence 288 pages).

(2) A contract for the supply of piping materials for the construction of high-level sewage treatment facilities of △△△△ (hereinafter referred to as “△△△”)

around September 5, 2008, Non-Indicted 2 entered into a supply contract with Non-Indicted 6 to supply pipes materials related to △△ Corporation to 250,000,000 (value-added tax separate) on behalf of Non-Indicted 1 (However, no fixed contract has been made, and on September 5, 2008, the seal of Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 6’s corporate seal is affixed to the document prepared in the name of “written order” in the name of Non-Indicted 1’s name, and on behalf of Non-Indicted 1, the document group’s “person in charge, department, director, senior secretary, and president’s letter of approval” is official, and the payment of the price is “payment by 100% after the delivery in bills.”

On September 19, 2008, Non-Indicted 7 received a promissory note (Evidence No. 81; hereinafter “instant Promissory note”) in the name of a settlement for goods prices from Non-Indicted 2, and paid KRW 15,000,000 out of the discount in cash at the south of the new bank branch on September 19, 2008.

(3) A contract for the provision of materials for the improvement of the water-flow treatment site for a reclaimed land in the Seoul Metropolitan area (hereinafter referred to as the "Semulshioning construction") to the "sprinking road construction

around September 16, 2008, Nonindicted 2 entered into a supply contract with Nonindicted Company 6 on behalf of Nonindicted Company 1 by stipulating that the “materials during the Mashro Corporation” shall be supplied in gold KRW 300 million (value added tax separately) (deficial, fixed contract was not made, and on September 16, 2008, the seal of Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 6’s corporate seal is affixed to each of the documents prepared in the name of “the order of order” in the name of Nonindicted Company 1’s name, and on September 16, 2008, the document’s “the person in charge, department, director, senior secretary, and president’s letter of approval” is blank, and the document’s “the payment of the price shall be 100% in the form of a bill.”

On October 15, 2008, Nonindicted 7 received a promissory note of KRW 209,00,000 from Nonindicted 2 as a pre-payment for the price of goods, and on February 15, 2009 from the date of payment (hereinafter “instant two Promissory Notes”), and transferred the amount of KRW 80,000,00 to the account in the name of Nonindicted 1 Company, and KRW 50,000,00 to the account in the name of Nonindicted 8 (Evidence Record 39 pages). However, the account in the name of Nonindicted 8 appears to have been deposited in the account of Nonindicted 1 Company on the same day (Evidence Record 297,298), and the date of payment is indicated to have been deposited in the account of Nonindicted 47,00,000 won (Evidence Record 297,298, and KRW 28,000,000,000,000).

B. After the end, Non-Indicted 7 received, from Non-Indicted 2, a promissory note with the face value of KRW 121,00,000 in the name of Non-Indicted 1, and the due date of December 15, 2008 (hereinafter “instant Three Promissory Notes”).

④ Around November 2, 2008, Nonindicted 2, without the Defendant’s permission, voluntarily prepared a certificate of assignment of claims stating that “ Nonindicted 2 transferred KRW 275,000,000 among the construction cost for △△ Corporation 11 to Nonindicted Co. 11, and KRW 330,000,000 among the construction cost for △△ Corporation 12 to Nonindicted Co. 12, Nonindicted Co. 2, without the Defendant’s permission, to each Nonindicted Co. 6,” and Nonindicted 7 notified Nonindicted Co. 11 and 12 of the respective assignment of claims on December 3, 2008 when the certificate of assignment of claims was voluntarily prepared without the Defendant’s consent.

⑤ In addition, around December 11, 2008, Nonindicted 2 extended the date for the payment of the instant three Promissory Notes to February 2, 2009, Nonindicted 2 prepared a proxy form in the name of Nonindicted 1 Company (the personal seal impression of the Defendant is affixed) and delivered to Nonindicted 7, with the content that, without any indication with the Defendant, the payment date of the instant three Promissory Notes was extended to February 2, 2009, Nonindicted 2 shall lead to the said assignment of claims and the said assignment of claims to Nonindicted 2.

6) Nonindicted 7 did not have any fact in doing the above series of transactions, and there was no fact that Nonindicted 7 had any contact with the Defendant by telephone, etc. (this refers to Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 2 did not continuously inform the Defendant of the contact address despite his request).

④ Nonindicted Co. 1 was in arrears on November 15, 2008, and Nonindicted Co. 2 did not work without any advance notice to Nonindicted Co. 1 from around December 2008.

④ On December 29, 2008, the Defendant agreed to receive advance payment from Nonindicted Company 12 on the basis of Nonindicted Company 1’s agreement (Evidence No. 52 pages) and to pay part of advance payment to ○○○ Sewage Treatment Contract to Nonindicted Company 7, and stated in the minutes form of Nonindicted Company 6 that “the advance payment of ○○○ Sewage Treatment Contract shall be paid KRW 400 million upon receipt of the advance payment, and a part of the advance payment may be adjusted by mutual consultation.” (Evidence No. 49 pages; hereinafter “instant payment agreement”) was delivered to Nonindicted Company 7, and thereafter, the Defendant paid KRW 40 million to Nonindicted Company 6 and thereafter paid KRW 10,000,000 to Nonindicted Company 6 on January 2, 2009.

B) 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, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilts, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable.

이러한 형사재판에서의 입증책임의 원칙에 비추어 이 사건에 관하여 살피건대, 위 인정사실 및 위 각 증거에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 이 사건 각 계약 체결과 이 사건 약속어음의 발행 등 공소외 6 회사와 사이의 일련의 거래에 있어서 공소외 2가 공소외 1 회사를 대리하여 모든 행위를 한 점, ② 공소외 2는 ‘공소외 6 회사 발행의 액면금 59,632,676원 약속어음의 배서인란에 공소외 1 회사 대표 피고인이라고 배서한 것은 자신이며 피고인의 허락을 받은 것은 아니고 그것이 최선이라 생각하였기에 그와 같이 한 것이다’라고 인정하고 있는 점, ③ 이 사건 각 계약과 관련된 발주서에는 담당자 등의 결재가 전혀 없고, □□현장과 △△현장에 납품되는 자재가 상이함에도 공소외 7은 두 현장을 나누어서 얼마의 자재가 공급되었는지는 특정할 수 없다고 주장하고 있는바, 위 계약이 정상적으로 체결되어 자재납품이 제대로 이루어진 것인지도 매우 의심되는 점, ④ 공소외 3과의 금전거래에 있어서는 비록 공소외 8 명의의 계좌로 금원을 송금받더라도 대부분의 금원이 공소외 1 회사 명의의 계좌로 재입금된 것으로 보이는데 반하여, 이 사건 1약속어음과 관련된 155,000,000원은 공소외 2 명의의 계좌에 입금된 바 없고, 그 사용처에 대한 객관적인 근거자료가 존재하지 아니하여 과연 이 금원이 공소외 1 회사의 자금으로 사용되었는지 여부가 매우 불투명하고, 이 사건 2약속어음과 관련된 금원도 단순히 ‘대체’로 되어 있어 피고인으로서는 그 출처를 분명히 알 수 없었을 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤ 비록 공소외 2가 피고인으로부터 포괄적으로 약속어음 발행 등에 관한 권한을 부여받고 있었다고 하더라도 이 사건 각 약속어음에 관하여는 통상적인 약속어음 발행의 경우라면 공소외 1 회사에 보관되어야 할 약속어음사본이나 약속어음 발행내역의 요약서(공소외 1 회사에서는 이를 ‘비표’라고 함)가 존재하지 않고, 이 사건 1, 2약속어음이 발행된 후 그 결제가 어렵게 되어 그 담보조로 채권양도 또는 기일연기를 함에 있어서는 적어도 피고인에게 보고를 하고 해결책을 모색함이 상당한데도 피고인 몰래 임의로 채권양도를 하고 위임장을 작성하여 공소외 7에게 교부하여 주는 등 몹시 비정상적으로 대처하였고, 공소외 7 또한 액면금 합계가 6억 원인 거액의 약속어음을 소지하고 있으면서 위와 같은 행위를 함에 있어 피고인에게 전화를 하는 등으로 전혀 확인하여 보지 아니한 점, ⑥ 공소외 2는 공소외 7에게 이 사건 1, 2, 3약속어음이 교부된 경위에 관하여, ㉮ 공소외 6 회사와 사이에 △△공사에 관한 자재납품 계약을 체결하면서 그 대금 명목으로 이 사건 1약속어음을 먼저 발행하여 주되, 어음금 중 일부를 공소외 1 회사가 다시 차용하기로 하여, 공소외 7이 위 약속어음을 자신의 거래은행인 신한은행에서 할인받아 할인금 중 155,000,000원을 소외 회사에 빌려주고, 나머지 할인금으로 자재를 매입하여 공소외 1 회사에 납품하였으며, ㉯ 그 후 다시 공소외 6 회사와 사이에 □□공사에 관한 자재계약을 체결하게 되었는데 공소외 7에게 종전과 같은 방식으로 어음할인을 해달라는 부탁을 하면서 이 사건 2약속어음을 교부하여 주었고, 공소외 7이 이를 신한은행에서 할인하여 그 중 130,000,000원을 빌려주었는데, 신한은행에서 위 어음이 융통어음이 아닌지 의심하게 되자 계약서에 기재된 총 납품대금 상당인 330,000,000원과의 차액에 해당하는 액면금 121,000,000원의 이 사건 3약속어음을 추가로 견질용으로 발행하게 된 것이라고 주장하고 있고, 이에 대하여 공소외 7은 처음에는 이 사건 1약속어음은 △△공사에 대한 자재대금으로 받은 것이고, 이 사건 2약속어음은 □□공사에 대한 대금으로 받은 것이며, 이 사건 3약속어음은 이 사건 1약속어음을 할인받아 대여한 155,000,000원에 대한 채권확보 및 □□공사현장에 납품된 자재 중 그 대금을 지급받지 못한 부분을 포함하여 교부받은 것이라고 진술하다가(증거기록 617쪽 이하), 공소외 2와 대질을 하게 되었을 때는 이 사건 2약속어음은 공소외 2의 부탁에 따라 추가로 자재납품을 하기로 하면서 신용보증기금에 공소외 1 회사의 어음결제신용도를 확인한 후에 그 금액만큼만 자재납품 발주를 받겠다고 하면서 그 한도액에 해당하는 209,000,000원의 약속어음을 교부받은 것이고, 이 사건 3약속어음은 보증용으로 받아둔 것으로 견질용이라고 진술을 번복하였다가(증거기록 812쪽 이하), 원심법정에서는 ‘이 사건 2약속어음을 (위와 같은 경위로) 교부받은 후 추가로 공소외 1 회사에 130,000,000원을 대여하면서 담보 명목으로 교부받은 것이라고 주장하여 그 자체로도 일관되지 아니하고, 공소외 2의 진술과도 일치하지 아니하는 점, ⑦ 피고인이 공소외 7로부터 협박을 당하여 작성하여 주었다고 고소한 이 사건 지급약정서는 그 내용상 협박을 당하여 작성한 서류로 보이지는 아니하나, 당시 공소외 7이 공소외 1 회사 발생의 액면금 합계 6억 원의 약속어음을 소지하고 있으면서 이를 지급제시하겠다고 주장하고 있었고, 그 관련자인 공소외 2는 회사에 출근을 제대로 하지 않고 있어 정확한 경위에 관하여 파악을 하지 못하고 있었던 피고인의 입장에서는 발주처로부터 공사대금을 지급받아 회사의 결제자금으로 사용하여야 하고 어음의 부도도 막아야 하는 위급상황에 처하게 되자, 공소외 7이 공소외 2에게 지급한 금원 중 실제 공소외 1 회사에서 사용된 금액을 정확히 특정하지도 아니한 채 부득이하게 위와 같은 내용의 이 사건 지급약정서를 작성하고 공소외 6 회사에게 150,000,000원을 지급한 것으로서 협박당하였다거나 편취당하였다는 주장은 피고인 입장에서의 정황의 과장으로 봄이 상당한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 위 공소사실에 부합하는 듯한 공소외 2의 진술은 합리적인 의심을 배제할 만한 신빙성이 있다고 보기 어렵고, 그 밖에 검사가 제출한 다른 증거들만으로는 피고인의 공소외 7 및 2009. 2. 25.자 공소외 2에 대한 무고의 공소사실을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다 주3) .

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case, the defendant's appeal as to the non-indicted 7's non-prosecution and the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 25 February 2009 is justified, and since each of the above crimes and the remaining crimes are concurrent crimes at the time of original judgment, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted from the whole reversal. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) and (6

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and the evidence acknowledged by this court is as follows: (a) deleted Article 2-1 (a) of the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below and deletes “Nonindicted 7” in Articles 2 and 2-3 from the summary of the evidence; and (b) thereby, it is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment below. Therefore, it is cited in accordance

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

Article 156 (False Accusation, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 4 (False Reporting, Selection of Imprisonment, and Selection of Fine) of the Control of Illegal Check Act (Amended by Act No. 10185, Mar. 24, 2010); Articles 109 (1) and 36 (Accrued Retirement Pay and Selection of Fine) of the Labor Standards Act.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Act

Although the crime of false accusation is not only causing pain to an unclaimed individual, but also undermining the State's criminal justice function, it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly. However, there is no specific punishment power except for the violation of the Labor Standards Act, and there are circumstances that may be taken into account as it was caused to the instant accusation in the absence of detailed confirmation of the details of transactions with Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3, and the crime of violation of the Labor Standards Act also resulted in the suspension of payment of retirement allowances when Nonindicted 2 retires from the company under suspicion of embezzlement of the company funds by Nonindicted 2. The crime of violation of the Labor Standards Act was committed when Nonindicted 3 retires from the company. In the civil lawsuit filed against the defendant against the defendant, the voluntary adjustment was established between Nonindicted 3 and the defendant and the damage to the repayment against Nonindicted 3 in the future. The punishment shall be determined by taking into account various circumstances such as the age, character and conduct of the defendant, environment, family relation, criminal records, etc. of the defendant who has been detained for a long time.

Of the facts charged in this case, the gist of Non-Indicted 7’s accusation and Non-Indicted 2’s accusation as of February 25, 2009’s accusation as of February 25, 2009’s accusation as to Non-Indicted 2-B-2 is the same as the above 2-B-1’s accusation, and as seen in Article 2-2(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of

Judges Ahn Ho-hee (Presiding Judge)

(1) On April 10, 2006, Non-Indicted 3 deposited KRW 5 million in the account in addition to the above KRW 28.8 million (Evidence No. 562 pages). On the same day, the said money was deposited into the account under Non-Indicted 8’s name with KRW 5 million deposited in the account under Non-Indicted 8’s name (Evidence No. 248 pages, Non-Indicted 199 pages).

Note 2) The amount calculated simply by calculating as principal all the content that appears to have been deposited as interest as principal.

3) Nonindicted Company 6 filed a lawsuit against Nonindicted Company 1 for the claim for the payment of the Promissory Notes No. 2009Kadan10346 with respect to the Promissory Notes No. 2 and 3 promise notes in this case, and Nonindicted Company 1 asserted that each of the above Promissory Notes was forged, and that there was no cause relationship since no goods were supplied from Nonindicted Company 6, but there was no cause relationship. However, the argument of Nonindicted Company 1 was accepted in entirety, and the judgment was handed down to the effect that “Nonindicted Company 1 shall pay to Nonindicted Company 6 KRW 330,000 and delay damages therefor,” and the said judgment was later finalized on July 14, 201 through the Seoul High Court and the Supreme Court, but such circumstance does not interfere with the above judgment.