Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Yellowcheon (Lawsuits) and duplicating (public trial)

Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Jong-Un, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 977, 2015 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision (Joint) Decided August 26, 2015

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

① As to the service contracts with Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) among the facts of crimes of “2014 high-level 9771” as indicated in the judgment of the court below, “preparation of contracts, etc. as stipulated in Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Do Administration Act”) refers not to the state in which the contract is formally prepared, but to the actual state in which the contract becomes final and conclusive. The above service contracts were prepared in the form on June 12, 2013, and were final and conclusive on July 11, 2013. In addition, the disclosure was not delayed, and ② as to the facts of crimes of “Nonindicted Co. 1” as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on “Article 18(1)1 and (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, etc., regardless of the names of the board of directors and the details thereof.”

B. Unreasonable sentencing

However, in light of the circumstances leading up to each of the instant crimes, and the fact that the Defendants, as long as partnership officers have contributed to the reconstruction project, and the respective period of delay in disclosure is relatively short, the respective sentences of the lower court that sentenced the Defendants (a fine of KRW 800,000 against Defendant 1 and a fine of KRW 700,000 against Defendant 2) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the mistake of facts

(1) As to ① above, Article 3 of the service contract of June 12, 2013 clearly states the number of inputs and input periods, and the service period related to application for parcelling-out is specified as 40 days from the starting date of receipt of the application for parcelling-out, and Article 12 states that “this contract shall become effective from the date of conclusion of the contract”. On July 11, 2013, the contract amount under the service contract is 68,850,00 won (excluding VT), which is the same as the contract amount under the above service contract of June 12, 2013, and it is difficult to determine that the Defendants violated the law of 20 days from the date of the above service contract of the Association, and thus, it is difficult to determine that the above contents of the service contract are equal to or same to the number of inputs and the period of inputs under the law of 10 days from the date of conclusion of the contract of June 12, 2013.

(2) Article 81(1) of the Do governor Act provides that the documents and relevant materials concerning the implementation of a rearrangement project shall be made available to the public as well as to the case of any modification thereof. Meanwhile, the minutes shall include the proceedings of the doctor, the guidelines, and the result. In addition, a thorough examination of the reasoning of the lower judgment is justifiable, and it does not seem that there was any error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles otherwise.

B. Regarding the issue of unfair sentencing

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances as alleged by the Defendants, as well as the various circumstances, including the Defendants’ respective ages, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime, the first Defendant 1 issued a summary order of KRW 1,200,000 in total of fines and KRW 1,00,000 in total to Defendant 2, but the lower court’s sentence that has been mitigated is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Final Head of the District Court (Presiding Judge)

1) Nonindicted 2, who requested by the Defendants, stated in the lower court that “At the time of the preparation of the service contract as of June 12, 2012, Nonindicted 2 did not clearly state an agreement with Nonindicted Company 1 to the effect that the service period may change later.”