Defendant

All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

The lower court found Defendant C not guilty of the facts charged of occupational embezzlement, which stated that “The Defendant C’s criminal and civil cases against the Defendant with R’s funds were embezzled by paying a total of KRW 2,1450,000 to H, which is a commission for appointment.” The Prosecutor appealed only on the part of “the embezzlement of KRW 1.1 million on October 31, 2007” among the facts charged. As such, the remainder of the facts charged was exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties, even though the aforementioned part of the facts charged was transferred to the lower court.

Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below shall be determined by the conclusion of innocence, and it shall not be determined separately in the trial.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: Defendant A was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes”) on May 13, 2009 by the Seoul High Court on May 13, 2009 (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”) and Defendant A was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes”). On September 10, 209, the Supreme Court dismissed the above Defendant’s appeal and became final and conclusive on September 10, 209. The act of lending money to M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) to take over U.S. Co. (hereinafter “U”) with respect to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “the case in which the judgment becomes final and conclusive”) should be deemed to be accompanied by the above offense of violation of the Act (hereinafter “the crime in question”).

In substance, it is difficult to accept the logic that K (hereinafter “victim company”) who was sentenced to the suspension of indictment as the perpetrator of the crime of violation of the law in the special circumstances of the case, once again becomes the victim of the crime of violation of the law in the special circumstances, and it is too excessive to the company for fraud according to the final judgment.