2014Do12425 A. Occupational breach of trust

(b) Property in breach of trust;

1. A;

2. A. B

Defendants

Law Firm (LLC) BH (Defendant 1)

Attorney BI, BJ, K, BL, BM, BN

Attorney BO (Korean national ship for Defendant 2)

Suwon District Court Decision 2014No2084 Decided August 28, 2014

May 26, 2016

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the lower court acknowledged the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and, in light of this, found Defendant A guilty of the charges against Defendant A, on the ground that Defendant A’s request for sale of the instant shares to N KRW 39,00,00, constitutes an illegal solicitation contrary to social rules and the principles of good faith. Defendant A’s receipt of KRW 120,000,000 from N constitutes a consideration for such illegal solicitation. Accordingly, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A of the charges against Defendant A, and convicted Defendant A of the violation of trust.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the principle of trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct examination, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “illegal solicitation and quid pro quo” in the crime of taking advantage of trust, or by

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is just to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted Defendant B of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its reasoning and to render a guilty verdict. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, by misapprehending the principle of trial-oriented principle, direct psychological principle, presumption of innocence, or by misapprehending the legal principles

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Jo Hee-de

Justices Park Sang-ok