Defendant 1 and three others

Defendant 1 and two others and the Prosecutor

Man-heat, effective (public trial)

Law Firm, Pacific et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Gohap1372 Decided December 13, 2013

All appeals filed by Defendant 1, Defendant 3, Defendant 4 and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1, Defendant 3 Co., Ltd.

1) Note 2 due to improper solicitation: Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

A) unconstitutionality of Article 445 Subparag. 6 and Subparag. 2 of the Capital Markets Act

Article 49 Subparag. 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act provides that a financial investment business entity shall not provide a conclusive judgment or inform a person who is likely to mislead the person to believe that the person is certain” in making an investment recommendation. Article 45 Subparag. 6 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act provides that a person who commits an act falling under Article 49 Subparag. 2 of the said Act is punished. In other words, Article 49 Subparag. 2 of the said Act is combined with Article 445 Subparag. 6 of the said Act, and Article 49 Subparag. 2 of the said Act provides a penal provision on punishment. In other words, the meaning of “unabruptive matters”, “abruptive judgment”, “abruptive judgment”, and “abruptive to mislead the person to believe that it

B) The assertion that there was no speech or behavior as described in the crime 1. A. as stated in the judgment of the court below

(1) Facts constituting the crime of 1. A. 1 of the judgment of the court below

Defendant 1 did not mean that, around April 28, 2010, at the first meeting of the Consultative Committee on Fund Management and Advisory (hereinafter “the first meeting of the Consultative Committee on Fund Management and Advisory”) held at the meeting of the president of Nonindicted 2 Educational Foundation (hereinafter “Nonindicted 2”) around April 10, 2010, Defendant 1 does not mean that “the first meeting of the Consultative Committee on Fund Management and Advisory (hereinafter “the first meeting of the Consultative Committee on Fund Management”).” even if Defendant 1 had used the above expressions, Defendant 1 did not clearly mention “the products that offer 12% profits,” and it merely stated that “the products that offer 12% profits,” and thus, it does not constitute an act of investment recommendation prohibited under Article 49 subparag. 2 of the Capital Markets Act.

(2) The part on 1. A. 2) of the judgment of the court below

Defendant 1, around May 27, 2010, at the office of Defendant 3 located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), there was no fact that Defendant 1 told Nonindicted 4 of the headquarters of Nonindicted 2’s college at the office of Defendant 3, the head of Nonindicted 4, “I would make a proposal to the Scholarship Foundation if it is dangerous to make a prior investment?” without any problem.

C) The assertion that Article 49 of the Capital Markets Act does not apply to any act before the investment recommendation.

Article 49 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act is a provision applicable at the stage of investment recommendation, and thus, simple consultation and guidance on financial investment instruments not accompanied by a solicitation to trade a specific financial investment instrument or to conclude a contract do not constitute investment recommendation. However, Article 49 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (1. b. 3)

Since Defendant 1 does not specifically mention the kind, contents, etc. of the goods to Nonindicted Foundation 1, or recommend the investment of Nonindicted Company 3 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 3 Savings Bank”) in the 100 billion won investment fund [the name of the correct fund is “The name of the △△△△○ Securities Investment Trust No. 5 (stocks)”; hereinafter “instant fund”)] issued by Nonindicted Company 3 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 3 Savings Bank”), it cannot be punished for violation of Article 49 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.

D) The assertion that Article 49 of the Capital Markets Act does not apply to any act after a decision on investment was made.

Article 49 of the Capital Markets Act is a provision applicable at the stage of investment recommendation. As such, Article 49 of the Capital Markets Act does not apply to Defendant 1’s speech and behavior made after the decision on investment was made. However, among the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, Article 49 of the Capital Markets Act (i) 1.b. 2). (1) part of the facts constituting the crime of the judgment of the court below that “it is unnecessary to 6 months only to the market,” and (ii) 1. 2) of Article 49 (4) that “the fact that it is francing is so that it would be difficult to think that it would be a short-term francing investment that may be done at the end of 10 billion won, and all savings banks of Nonindicted 3 should have 00 billion won as the principal and interest model of the 00-year Savings Bank, and 1000 billion won as the 1st 6th 2nd 3rd 2000 Do 1213.

E) Claim that there is no causation between the improper solicitation and the other party's investment decision

In order to constitute “an act of providing a conclusive judgment on any uncertain matter or information that is likely to mislead any person to believe that he/she is certain,” under Article 49 subparag. 2 of the Capital Markets Act, it must be a case where the investor interferes with the formation of a proper perception of risk inevitably accompanying the transactional act or actively solicits the transaction involving excessive risk in light of the customer’s investment situation. However, the statements made by Defendant 1 at the third meeting of the Fund Management Committee of the Foundation of the Foundation of the Foundation of Nonindicted 1 had the influence on Defendant 1’s own opinion in the course of discussions among the members of the Fund Management Committee of the Foundation of the Foundation of the Foundation of Nonindicted 1 and did not “inviting the investment.” Even if the Defendant’s remarks constitute an act of soliciting investment, Nonindicted 1 Fund Management Committee members of the Foundation of the Foundation of the Foundation decided the instant investment without any influence on Defendant 1’s remarks. Accordingly, this part of the statements by Defendant 1 do not constitute an act of unfair solicitation

2) Note 4) Unfair sentencing

The sentence of the court below (the fine of KRW 100 million) against Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 4

1) The misapprehension of legal principles as to the use of evidence alteration and altered evidence

A) Where evidence, which is the object of the crime of altering evidence, is “documents”, the scope of such documents

According to the Supreme Court Decision cited by the lower court (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2244 Decided July 28, 2011), where the object of the crime of forging evidence is a document, the document should be in the form of “documents” (the same shall apply to the crime of altering evidence). However, the document that Defendant 4 instructed and altered to Nonindicted 5 is not the final copy, but the document is the first stage of the draft, and its form also does not constitute a document related to a document under the Criminal Act.

B) In the case of the crime of alteration of evidence, the object of “Alteration”

The object of the crime of “the alteration” was “the alteration of the shape or content of evidence.” However, in the criminal investigation process of Defendant 1, etc., the object of Defendant 4’s order to delete was the file “the evidence already secured by the prosecutor’s office through search and seizure,” which was “the business normalization implementation plan (revision) file (revision) file, which was kept in Defendant 3’s server. Therefore, the file “the file correction” as corrected by Defendant 4 cannot be the object of the crime of the alteration of evidence, and thus, the lower court found Defendant 4 guilty of this part of the facts charged is unlawful as it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the object of the alteration of evidence.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Considering the overall circumstances, such as the fact that Defendant 4 was not prevented from committing the instant crime in order for Defendant 4 to gain personal benefits, and the fact that Defendant 4’s mistake was divided and reflected, the sentence of the lower court against Defendant 4 (one month imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(c) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: The portion not guilty

A) The part on Defendant 1

(1) The part concerning Nonindicted Foundation 1 among the violations of the Capital Markets Act due to fraudulent unfair trading (Article 178(1)2 of the Capital Markets Act) by false statements, etc.

(A) The part on Defendant 1’s motive or subjective perception

① Whether Defendant 1’s direct business operation and financial status of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, and whether Defendant 1 conspired with Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank

㉠ 피고인 1은 이 사건 펀드 투자 직후 공소외 3 저축은행 경영진에게 404억 원 상당의 공소외 6 저축은행 지분 인수를 강하게 요구하여 위 404억 원을 회수한 점, ㉡ 피고인 1은 이 사건 펀드 투자를 제안하기 이전에 이미 공소외 3 저축은행에 투자의향서를 작성하여 준 점, ㉢ 피고인 1은 공소외 3 저축은행이 캄보디아에 신도시를 건설하는 주5) 사업 등에 투자한 적이 있어 공소외 3 저축은행이 자기 사업을 하고 있고, 그 투자위험성도 높다는 점을 인식하고 있었던 점, ㉣ 피고인 1은 2010. 5. 하순경 금융감독원 저축은행서비스국 공소외 9 국장으로부터 “공소외 3 저축은행이 상태가 안 좋은데 알고 있느냐, 투자자 보호를 위해 공소외 3 저축은행의 재무 상태를 정확히 확인하고 투자자에게 설명하라.”라는 조언까지 들었던 점, ㉤ 공소외 5가 공소외 3 저축은행의 영업정지 직후 ‘경영정상화 이행 계획서(수정)’ 파일 첨부 전자우편을 삭제한 점에 비추어 보면 공소외 3 저축은행의 부실이 단순히 금융감독원의 감독 기준 변경에 의한 것이 아니고, 향후 PF대출 채권의 부실이 가중될 위험성이 있으며 8.8 클럽에서 탈락할 것을 공소외 3 저축은행 경영진 스스로도 예상하고 있다는 사실을 이 사건 당시 알고 있었다고 보이는 점, ㉥ 피고인 1과 공소외 3 저축은행 경영진 사이에 순차적이고 암묵적인 공모와 실행의 분담이 인정되는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 1은 공소외 3 저축은행의 부실상황을 잘 알고 있는 상태에서 공소외 3 저축은행의 경영진인 공소외 10, 공소외 11과 이 사건 범행을 공모하였음이 충분히 인정된다.

② Legal assessment of fund losses and the existence of motive to commit a crime

Defendant 1 was anticipated to make it very difficult for Nonindicted 3 savings banks even if capital increase was made by investing the total amount of KRW 100 billion in Nonindicted Foundation 1 and Nonindicted 2’s equity capital increase. However, if the instant capital increase was not made, not only the property loss of the fund managed by Defendant 3 but also Defendant 1 and Defendant 3’s credit (including “unauthorized profit”). Defendant 1 is replaced with the “high risk burden” of Nonindicted 1 Foundation in order to avoid the “final loss” of Defendant 3, and there is sufficient motive to commit the crime.

(B) The portion concerning the presentation and explanation of false data

① As to the presentation and explanation of additional data at the third fund management committee meeting of Nonindicted Foundation 1

On June 17, 2010, Defendant 1 prepared additional data related to the capital increase of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank (hereinafter “instant additional data”) presented by Defendant 1 at the third meeting of the Fund Management Committee of Nonindicted Foundation 1 (hereinafter “the instant additional data”), and deleted the term “financial advisory fee” and “the allowances for bad debts for Nonindicted 12 Savings Bank 92 billion won”, and did not explain them at the third meeting of the Fund Management Committee was likely to not be made by the instant investment due to controversy among the Fund Management Committee members. Defendant 1 explained to the effect that “the Fund Management Committee members, including Defendant 2, etc., prepared the BISD ratio in remuneration.” In order to attract the instant additional data for capital increase, such as enhancing the credibility of the instant additional data, Defendant 1 intentionally stated and explained the instant additional data as above.”

(2) The Governor's position on inspection results, etc.

In full view of the contents and purport of Defendant 1’s statement as stated in this part of the facts charged, this does not only mean Defendant 1’s statement of his own decision, as determined by the lower court, but also explain to the Fund members the talks that Defendant 1 directly talks with the Director General of the Financial Supervisory Service at the time.

③ Defendant 1’s assertion that Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s demand for the accumulation of the Financial Supervisory Service’s allowance for bad debts is a non-measurable and policy-based determination, as the case pertains to the sale of Brazil’s government bonds.

㉠ 금융감독원이 공소외 3 저축은행으로 하여금 브라질 국채를 매각하도록 한 것은 브라질 국채를 사채로 해석하였기 때문이지 이를 부실 자산으로 본 것은 아닌 점, ㉡ 피고인 1은 2009. 7. 22.경 당시 수감되어 있던 공소외 10 부회장을 면회하고 사업상 상의를 하기도 하는 등 브라질 국채 투자의 실체에 대해 잘 알고 있었던 점, ㉢ 피고인 1이 브라질 국채 매각 건을 예로 든 것은 금융감독원의 대손충당금 적립 요구가 공소외 3 저축은행의 부실에 기인한 것이 아니라 금융감독원의 검사 기준이 엄격히 변경되었음을 설명하며 나온 발언인 점, ㉣ 그 밖에 피고인 1의 부당권유 발언내용을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 1이 브라질 국채 매각 건을 예로 들면서 공소외 3 저축은행에 대한 금융감독원의 대손충당금 적립 요구가 비계량적·정책적 판단 때문인 것처럼 호도하여 공소외 3 저축은행의 재무상황을 거짓 설명하였다고 보아야 한다.

④ Defendant 1’s false description about the transparency of the major shareholders of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank.

Defendant 1, in the past several times, emphasized that in the process of the M&A of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, Defendant 1 had experienced the transparency of its major shareholders, and that the data to be examined at the time of issuing capital increase with new stocks would also be based on the data provided by transparent major shareholders. Specifically, during the past five years, Defendant 1 granted reliability on the financial statements of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank in the past that stated that he paid 50 billion to 60 billion to 50 billion to 60 billion won each year. However, Defendant 1’s explanation is clearly inconsistent with his experience.

⑤ Defendant 1 did not notify Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank and its large shareholder of any material fact affecting investment judgment, such as the financial situation of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank and its large shareholder, and extreme conflict of interest between the investor and the investor, which was known in the course of managing a number of funds related to Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank.

In light of the following facts: (a) Nonindicted 2’s University Scholarship Fund Co., Ltd. was asked about whether there was leakage of funds to Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s affiliates; and (b) Defendant 3 asked about there was no possibility of leakage of funds; (c) Defendant 1 clearly stated that funds of KRW 40.4 billion would not have been invested if he knew that the funds of KRW 10.4 billion were left out for the acquisition of shares of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, the capital erosion of capital erosion; and (d) Defendant 1 knew that Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s additional acquisition of shares of KRW 40.4 billion would have increased the loss of equity in the event of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s additional acquisition of shares of KRW 30.4 billion. Nevertheless, Defendant 1 did not enter the funds of this case or the additional funds of this case.

(C) There was an intentional negligence on Defendant 1

① Defendant 1 led Defendant 1 to attract capital increase with consideration. During that process, Defendant 1’s officers, including Defendant 1, did not confirm the appropriateness of financial statements, including estimated financial statements, received from Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank. Rather, there was a fact that their key conditions of investment conditions to be proposed to attract investment to investors are notified in advance to Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank and demanded revision of estimated financial statements accordingly. ② Defendant 3’s officers conducted the revision of the articles of incorporation of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank on the premise of capital increase with consideration from around March 2010, upon Defendant 1’s order, and Defendant 1 prepared the intent of investment to be submitted to the Financial Supervisory Service on March 30, 2010. After that process, as identified in the foregoing e-mail, it was doubtful that Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank did not closely verify the financial status of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, and Defendant 1 did not prepare any false statement about the possibility of investment solicitation, etc.

(2) The part concerning Nonindicted Foundation 1 among the violations of the Capital Markets Act due to fraudulent unfair trading (Article 178(2) of the Capital Markets Act) by fraudulent means, etc.

① As seen earlier, Defendant 1 provided a false explanation or explanation as to the contents of his experience as if he had experienced, or opposed to the contents of his experience; ② Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank had already been established as an investment source by providing a prior statement of intent to make an investment and had been in progress with the amendment of the articles of incorporation of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank; and Defendant 1’s series of investment attraction process, such as: (a) Defendant 1 provided a prior explanation as to material conflict of interest with the Scholarship Foundation and the Fund; (b) Defendant 1 provided a false explanation to the members of the Fund Management Committee as if he provided a reliable verification of the material presented by him; and (c) Defendant 1 provided a false explanation as if he provided a reliable verification of the material presented by Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank; and (c) Defendant 1 provided a false explanation to the members of the Fund Management Committee, as a whole, constitutes the use of deceptive scheme.

(3) Part 7 of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) concerning the non-indicted 1 Foundation

Defendant 1’s series of acts committed against Nonindicted Foundation 1 in relation to the issue of capital increase with respect to the instant issue of capital increase constitutes deception against Nonindicted Foundation 1.

(4) The part concerning the violation of the Capital Markets Act due to the fraudulent unfair trading (Articles 178(1)2 and 178(2) of the Capital Markets Act) and the part concerning each of the non-indicted 2 universities, among the violation of the special circumstances (Fraud)

Defendant 1 was aware that during the process of providing several explanations of investment by Nonindicted 13, etc. at the meeting of the Fund Management Committee of Nonindicted Foundation 1 and Nonindicted 2, Defendant 1 was aware that Nonindicted 2, at the meeting of Nonindicted Foundation 1’s Fund Management Committee, Defendant 1 sought a decision on the investment of Nonindicted Foundation 14 against Nonindicted 14. Accordingly, Defendant 1’s submission of false data and false explanation, and the use of deceptive scheme, etc. conducted by Nonindicted Foundation 1 Fund Management Committee, as stated in the facts charged, constitute deception against Nonindicted 2 University.

B) Violation of the Capital Markets Act due to Defendant 2’s fraudulent unfair trading

Defendant 2, in collusion with Defendant 1, committed fraudulent unfair trading against Nonindicted Foundation 1 and Nonindicted University 2.

C) Violation of the Capital Markets Act due to Defendant 3’s fraudulent unfair trading

Defendant 3’s representative, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 employed Defendant 3’s business, respectively, committed a fraudulent unfair trading with respect to Defendant 3’s business.

D) Defendant 4’s alteration of private documents and the uttering of altered private documents

Defendant 4 did not only change the “business normalization implementation plan” file, but also output it. As can be seen, the document actually printed after changing the content of the document file for the purpose of printing out the document constitutes a document for a crime related to documents under the Criminal Act.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Considering the overall circumstances such as Defendant 1’s use of a decent expression in attracting investment, the scope of damage to Nonindicted Foundation 1 and Nonindicted University 2, and Defendant 4’s deletion of a plan to implement business normalization (revision) prior to the instant crime, etc., Defendant 1’s sentence of the lower court is unreasonable as seen earlier against Defendant 1, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4, as seen earlier.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant 1 and Defendant 3

A. Whether Article 45 subparag. 6 and subparag. 2 of the Capital Markets Act are unconstitutional

The principle of clarity, which is the derived principle of the principle of no crime without the law, means that a law intends to punish a person, and its punishment is imposed, and the elements of a crime must be clearly defined so that anyone can anticipate whether the act is in conflict with it, and whether the violation is determined depending on whether the contents of the law give a sufficient predictability to the criminal, whether the arbitrary interpretation or application of the law is reasonably excluded from the scope of the interpretation or application by the agency interpreting and executing the law concerned. However, even if the concept requiring complementary interpretation is used to a certain extent and to a certain extent wide range of the punishment regulations, it alone does not violate the demand of clarity required by the Constitution (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2262, Apr. 26, 2013).

In this case, the prior meaning of “unforeseeable matters” under Article 49 subparag. 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, i.e., “unforeseeable matters”, i., “unforeseeable matters”, i.e., “shortly determined matters”, i.e., “matters to be determined and determined well”, and the prior meaning of “the possibility of causing mistake or misunderstanding as to be correct” refers to “the possibility of causing mistake or misunderstanding as to be correct.” If the general public with sound common sense and ordinary legal sentiment, it cannot be said that it is considerably difficult for law enforcement agencies to predict what prohibited acts are, and there is no concern for arbitrary interpretation or enforcement thereof. Furthermore, the detailed matters that are included in the concept of “unforeseeable matters”, “reasonable determination”, and “unforeseeable matters to be determined” can be wide and diverse, and thus, it cannot be said that it is necessary to establish a comprehensive and abstract concept as prescribed in Article 49 subparag. 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act to the extent that it does not violate the comprehensive provision of law.

B. Whether the words and actions as stated in the judgment of the court below were the same as stated in 1. A.

1) Facts constituting the crime of 1. A. 1 of the judgment of the court below

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that Defendant 1 was aware of the facts constituting the crime indicated in the judgment of the lower court at the first session of the Consultative Committee on Fund Management of Non-Indicted 2 University and the first session of the University of Non-Indicted 2.1.

(1) In the minutes of the first session of the Fund Management Advisory Committee of Nonindicted Party 2’s University, Defendant 1 made a statement to the effect that “I may connect the products with which 12% of the no risk exists.” However, if the funds are provided to an enterprise in need of funds, there may be a way to stably pay profits, and the said enterprise may be referred to as “the said enterprise.”

(2) The above minutes are prepared on the basis of a stenographic record recorded by the head of the university fund management team and the head of the division of Nonindicted Party 2 on the day of the meeting by Nonindicted Party 15 on the day following the meeting.

(3) The chief of Nonindicted Party 2’s University Head of Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 15, who was in charge, consistently from the investigative agency to the court below, stated, “Defendant 1, at the first meeting of the Fund Management Advisory Committee, stated, “The products that offer 12% profits without any risk”.

(4) Defendant 1: (a) recommended the investment of the instant fund to Nonindicted Foundation 1 and Nonindicted University 2; and (b) frequently used the expression of support in conviction.

(5) Meanwhile, Defendant 1, Defendant 3, and his defense counsel argued that the minutes were forged or altered, or that the contents of the minutes were not reliable. Rather, Defendant 1 stated that the minutes were forged or altered solely on the ground that there was no disturbance for approval, etc. on the minutes. Defendant 1 stated that “12-13% of the minutes can be received” as stated in paragraph (b) (i) of the criminal facts on the part of Nonindicted Foundation 1 on April 6, 2010 prior to the meeting. In addition, Defendant 1 stated that the contents of the minutes are related to the main agenda of the first meeting of the Fund Operation Advisory Committee (the funding plan of Nonindicted University 2) of the first meeting of the Fund Operation Advisory Committee. In light of the contents of the minutes, the contents of the minutes are credibility.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The above determination by the court below is justifiable even if the following circumstances, etc., which were revealed by considering the evidence presented prior to the above circumstances, were observed.

(1) At the court of original instance, Nonindicted 15 clearly stated in the court of first instance that “At the time, Nonindicted 15 made a clear statement that “at the time, it would not be possible to arrange the contents that he did not speak because of the fact that the proposals were recorded mainly, and that the recording was made, it would be reasonable to deem that the accuracy would be reduced.” However, it would be reasonable to organize the recorded contents, and that it was exactly prepared due to hearing and stenographic notes.”

(2) At the court of a trial, Nonindicted 16 made a statement to the effect that “In the case of Defendant 1, Defendant 1 used aggressive and convictions. It is not memory, but it is memory that has been written with a strong language at all times.”

(3) Meanwhile, even if Defendant 1 made this part of the statement, Defendant 1 did not mention specific investment goods, and merely stated that it does not constitute an act of soliciting investment. However, as seen in Section 2(c) below, Defendant 1’s statement to the effect that this part of the statement was an unfair solicitation in connection with the investment of the Fund of this case by universal and continuous means, together with all other remarks written in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below. In addition, Nonindicted 13 stated in the court of the court below that “Defendant 1 is a good good product. Accordingly, Defendant 2 was authorized to make an investment.” Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 expressed to the effect that Defendant 1 had the right to find and make an investment.”

2) The judgment of the court below on the part of 1. A. 2 of the judgment below

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that Defendant 1 recognized Nonindicted 4 as having made the same remarks as the stated in the lower judgment’s crime 1. A. 2) by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence:

(1) On May 27, 2010, Non-Indicted 4 stated that “Around May 27, 2010, Defendant 1 met Defendant 1 at Defendant 3’s office, or Defendant 1 made such remarks at the time,” consistently from the investigative agency to the lower court’s court.

(2) Defendant 1, in fact, recommended the investment of the instant fund to Nonindicted Foundation 1 and Nonindicted University 2 on the part of Nonindicted Foundation 1 and Nonindicted University 2, frequently used supporting expressions.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The above determination by the court below is justifiable even if the following circumstances, etc., which were revealed by considering the evidence presented prior to the above circumstances, were observed.

(1) Defendant 1, even at the first meeting of the Fund Management Consultative Committee, used the expression “products with 12% no risk” to the conviction of “products with 12% risk.”

(2) As seen earlier, Nonindicted 16 also stated in the court of the trial that “Defendant 1 used the supporting expression frequently in the ordinary sense.”

C. Determination as to the assertion that Article 49 of the Capital Markets Act does not apply to acts prior to investment recommendation

1) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed by taking account of the admitted evidence, the court below determined that Defendant 1’s investment cases, which Defendant 1 called at the meeting of the Second Fund Management Committee of Nonindicted Foundation 1 and the first meeting of the Fund Management Advisory Committee of Nonindicted University 2, were related to the instant fund against Nonindicted Bank 3, and Defendant 1’s statement at each meeting of Nonindicted Foundation 1 and Nonindicted University 2, also deemed that Defendant 1’s statement at each of the above meetings was related to the instant fund against Nonindicted Bank 3. Thus, insofar as Defendant 1 solicited Nonindicted Foundation 1 and Nonindicted University 2 to invest in the instant fund through a series of acts under the same criminal intent, it is reasonable to view that all of the acts of Defendant 1 constituted an unfair solicitation related to the instant fund by universal and continuous means.

A) On March 30, 2010, prior to the filing of this part of the speech and behavior, Defendant 1 had an intention to make an investment within the limit of KRW 100 billion on the part of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s conversion priority note to be issued by Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank.” Defendant 3 had prepared and issued an investment intent, and Defendant 3 continued to perform the work, including the revision of the articles of incorporation and the review of estimated financial statements of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s money necessary for capital increase with Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank from March 30, 2010 until the meeting of the Second Fund Management Committee of Nonindicted 1 Foundation and the first Fund Management Advisory Committee of Nonindicted 2 University was held.

B) Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 sent to Nonindicted 2 University of Korea (hereinafter “Investment Report”) which explained that the subject of the investment was Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, around May 7, 2010, Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 did not know this part of the report at each of the above meetings, and explained Nonindicted 1 Foundation’s second fund management subcommittee meeting, around May 10, 2010, and explained Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s investment in the instant fund.

C) The investment Lart contains 12% per annum on the target return by Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank for the investment.

D) Defendant 1 explained the instant funds to each Nonindicted University 2 and Nonindicted Foundation 1, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, around May 27, 2010, and around June 17, 2010, as stated in Articles 1.1.2 and 1.2 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is justified. In so doing, the court below did not err by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The above determination by the court below is justifiable even if the following circumstances, etc., which were revealed by considering the evidence presented prior to the above circumstances, were observed.

A) The process in which Defendant 1 made this part of the statement was discussed is how to operate the Fund of Nonindicted Foundation 1 at the meeting of the Second Fund Management Committee. When the head of Nonindicted Foundation 17 mentioned the size of surplus funds, Nonindicted Party 18 members and Defendant 1 made the proposal for investment.

B) At the end of the meeting of the Second Fund Management Committee, Defendant 1 respondeded to Nonindicted 19 Chairman of the second Fund Management Committee, “I am 12% interest rate per savings bank. I am 12% interest rate per 12%.” (hereinafter “I am 11”) to Defendant 1’s answer, “I am me very important to make an investment. It is very important to do so.” In examining the context before and after this part of Defendant 1’s statement, it is difficult to view Defendant 1 as proposing that I invest in the Fund of this case in the Fund of this case, and simply introducing or guiding goods.

D. Determination as to the assertion that Article 49 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act does not apply to any act after a decision on investment was made.

1) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that it was reasonable to view that Defendant 1 was still at the stage of soliciting investment in the instant fund against Nonindicted Foundation 1 at the time of Defendant 1’s statement as to this part at the third fund management committee meeting.

A) The overall purport of this part of the statement was to express the opinion that “In addition to the investment of KRW 50 billion by Nonindicted Foundation 1 and Nonindicted Foundation 2 and each of the 50 billion investments by Nonindicted University 2, it is necessary to increase the amount of KRW 50 billion by major shareholders, etc., and, if so, it is possible to invest.” Defendant 1 proposed 50 billion increase to the major shareholders of Nonindicted Bank 3 savings bank, etc.

B) In addition, it is clear that Nonindicted Foundation 1’s intent to make an investment that was issued by Nonindicted Foundation 1 to Defendant 1 at the third meeting of the Fund Management Committee was a condition that Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s major shareholders increase the amount of KRW 50 billion, etc., and that it was not finally decided on the investment of KRW 50 billion in the event that Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s major shareholders increase the amount of KRW 50 billion first, etc. in the amount of KRW 50 billion.

C) Even after the meeting of the 3rd Fund Management Committee, Nonindicted Foundation 1 asked Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 about the instant fund investment issues, including the current status of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s PF loans, etc., and Defendant 3 took actions, such as preparing and sending data pertaining to Nonindicted Foundation 1.

D) According to the structure of the instant fund, a contract was concluded in a fixed manner between Defendant 3 and trust companies, etc., and Nonindicted Foundation 1 paid KRW 50 billion investment amount to Nonindicted Foundation 50 billion was around June 29, 2010, after around 12 days from June 17, 2010, when the third Fund Management Committee was held.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In the following circumstances, the court below’s aforementioned determination is justified even if it appears that there was an unexpected situation between June 29, 2010 and June 29, 2010 when the actual investment contract was concluded on June 17, 2010 by issuing a letter of intent to make an investment to Nonindicted 1 Foundation or Nonindicted 2 University and Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, which could have been revealed through the foregoing evidence revealed earlier, and there was no circumstance that may interfere with such a situation.

E. Whether there is no causal relationship between the improper solicitation and the other party's investment decision

1) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed by taking account of the evidence adopted, the lower court determined that Defendant 1’s speech and behavior constitutes an act of providing a conclusive judgment on uncertain matters prohibited under Article 49 subparag. 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act or of informing information that is likely to mislead or mislead any person to believe that he/she is certain, in light of the average investor with ordinary care.

A) The legal interest protected under Article 49 of the Capital Markets Act, which prohibits a financial investment business entity from providing a conclusive judgment, is the social legal interest of maintaining and securing fairness in trading stocks, etc., protection of investors, and trust in financial investment business entities, etc. that play a central role in the capital market. In addition, in order to protect such social legal interest, the Capital Markets Act regulates a financial investment business entity not to engage in any act prescribed in Article 49 of the Capital Markets Act with a certain type of act. As such, the issue of whether it constitutes “providing a conclusive judgment on an unexpected matter” and “an act of informing that a financial investment business entity is likely to mislead that it is certain to believe that it is certain” should be determined based on an average investor with ordinary care.

B) However, in the instant case, Defendant 1 recommended to invest in the instant fund with respect to Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, and notified Defendant 1 of the content that Defendant 1 did not actually or accurately have any actual knowledge of, or did not have any accurate experience in, the risk of investment in Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, the amount of appropriation for bad debts, the position of the Financial Supervisory Service, and the financial status of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank after capital increaseing KRW 100 billion.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The above determination by the court below is justifiable even if the following circumstances, etc., which were revealed by considering the evidence presented prior to the above circumstances, were observed.

A) Article 49 Subparag. 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act provides that “A financial investment business entity shall not provide a conclusive judgment on an uncertain matter in making an investment recommendation or inform information that may mislead an uncertain matter to be believed to be certain,” and does not provide for an investor to make an investment as a separate constituent element due to such an act by a financial investment business entity.

B) In the court of first instance, Nonindicted 16 stated in the court that “Defendant 1’s expression “box” would be “to the extent that the amount of fine is reduced to the extent of “Guideb.”” In the event that the members of the fund management committee do not decide to invest in the fund of this case on the sole basis of Defendant 1’s speech and behavior, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant 1’s speech and behavior does not pose any danger to this part of the fund.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant 4's use of evidence alteration and altered evidence

A. Relevant legal principles

In the crime of forging evidence of another person's criminal or disciplinary case, "Evidence" refers to all the data recognized by an investigative agency, court or disciplinary authority in relation to another person's criminal or disciplinary case to verify the existence or absence of the right of punishment or disciplinary action of the State, and the existence or absence of the value of evidence and the degree of the value of such evidence are unclear. The term "coverage" in this context refers to the creation of new evidence, unlike the concept of forgery of a crime concerning documents, unlike the concept of forgery, and thus, the non-existent evidence falls under the category of Article 155 (1) of the Criminal Act, and where evidence is in the form of document, it does not affect the existence or absence of the right of preparation or the authenticity of the content thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3600, Jun. 28, 2007, etc.).

B. Specific determination

1) The defense counsel asserts that if the object of the crime of alteration of evidence is a document, the document should be in the form of “documents”. However, in light of the legal principles of the above Supreme Court precedents, the object of the crime of alteration of evidence does not have to have the document form like the defense counsel’s assertion when it is a document. Accordingly, the defense counsel’s assertion on a different premise

2) In addition, since Defendant 4 did not change the shape or content of the “business normalization implementation plan (revision)” file, which is the evidence secured by the prosecution through search and seizure, the defense counsel asserts that the crime of alteration of evidence and use of altered evidence is not established. However, as the lower court properly determined, the “business normalization implementation plan (revision) file remaining in Defendant 3’s company server” still constitutes evidence related to the criminal case of Defendant 1, etc., and thus, the above defendant’s defense counsel’s above assertion cannot be accepted on a different premise.

4. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The part concerning Nonindicted Foundation 1 among the violations of the Capital Markets Act due to fraudulent unfair trading (violation of Article 178(1)2 of the Capital Markets Act) by Defendant 1’s false statement, etc.

1) Determination as to Defendant 1’s motive or subjective perception

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below found that Defendant 1 was aware of the circumstances described in paragraph (1) below among the circumstances described in paragraph (2) below, and determined that it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant 1 was aware of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) below. In light of the circumstances described in paragraph (3), etc., the court below determined that it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 1, who was not the management of the savings bank of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, was aware of the circumstances described in paragraph (1) below, in collusion with the management of the savings bank of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank and the degree of awareness of the interests and the situation of the savings bank of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, could be doubtful as to whether Defendant 1’s false statement, explanation, or intentional concealment of the important facts against Nonindicted 1 Foundation, etc., and that it was a motive for Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s fraudulent unfair trading or deception.

(1) Part of the facts charged that Defendant 1 was aware of the facts charged

Defendant 1, at the time of proposing to make an investment in the Fund, he was aware of the following: (a) around October 2010, when Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank was to take over the equity interest of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank from the Investment Trust of Special Asset (hereinafter “PF loans”) around four months after capital increase; (b) around October 2010, Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank was to take over the equity interest of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank; (c) Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank was in possession of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank; (d) Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s equity interest in business implementation; (e) Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s equity interest was in possession; (e) Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s equity interest in the PF loans and affiliated Savings Bank’s equity in comparison with other Savings Banks; and (e) considerable number of savings banks were to take over the equity interest of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank; and (e) Defendant 1 was not aware of the fact that most of the equity interest in the savings bank and Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s equity loans were directly conducted by the Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank.

(2) Part of the facts charged cannot be readily concluded or Defendant 1 was aware of the facts charged.

피고인 1은, ① 공소외 3 저축은행을 위해 조성한 ◇◇◇ ◁◁▷▷ 펀드를 운용하는 과정에서 공소외 3 저축은행이 어려운 자금 사정으로 인하여 풋백옵션을 받지 못하는 것을 경험하였다는 부분, ② 만약 캄보디아 사업이 실패하여 피고인 3 회사가 설정한 ◇◇◇ ♤♤♤♤ 제1호 주14) 펀드 에 손실이 발생할 경우 피고인 1이 그 손실을 공소외 3 저축은행으로부터 보전받기로 하였다는 부분, ③ 만약 공소외 3 저축은행이 2010. 10.경 공소외 6 저축은행 지분에 관한 풋백옵션을 받지 못할 경우 피고인 3 회사가 제3금융권으로부터의 차입원리금 404억 원을 직접 변제하여야 하는 것을 알고 있었다는 부분, ④ 공소외 3 저축은행이 2005. 12.경부터 2010. 1.경까지 사이에 피고인 3 회사가 조성한 펀드들에 합계 1,291억 원 상당을 투자하였으므로 반드시 공소외 3 저축은행에 유상증자를 성공시켜야 하였다는 부분, ⑤ 경기 침체 및 감독당국의 부실 PF대출에 대한 규제 강화에 따라 공소외 3 저축은행은 PF대출이 급격히 부실화되고 8·8 클럽을 유지하기 어려워져, 결국 공소외 3 저축은행 및 계열 저축은행의 경영 상황 및 수익 구조가 악화되리라는 것을 알고 있었다는 부분, ⑥ 공소외 3 저축은행 및 계열 저축은행이 차명 주주를 내세워 자기 사업을 하고 있다는 부분, ⑦ 금융감독원 국장 공소외 9를 면담하는 과정에서 금융감독원과 예금보험공사가 공소외 3 저축은행에 대하여 한 주15) 공동검사 를 통해 공소외 3 저축은행의 대규모 부실이 드러난 것을 알게 되었다는 부분에 관하여 이를 인정하기 어렵고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

(3) Relationship between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank

① 이 사건 펀드에 투자할 것을 제안할 당시 피고인 3 회사의 수탁고가 약 11조 원 ~ 12조 원 정도여서 공소외 3 저축은행이 투자한 1,000억 원 ~ 2,000억 원은 그 중 일부에 해당하는 점, ② 오히려 공소외 1 재단은 2007년경부터 2010년경 사이에 약 1,900억 원을, 공소외 2 대학은 2010년경부터 2011년경 사이에 약 2,675억 원을 피고인 3 회사가 운용하는 펀드에 투자하여 왔던 점, ③ 피고인 3 회사는 기본적으로 운용자금의 0.05% ~ 0.1% 정도의 수수료를 수익원으로 하고 있는 점, ④ 피고인 1 내지 피고인 3 회사가 ◇◇◇ ♤♤♤♤ 제1호 펀드 및 ◇◇◇ ◎◎ 특자펀드의 투자자들에게 투자원리금을 공소외 3 저축은행 대신 지급하여야 하는 것도 아닌 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 피고인 1이나 피고인 3 회사가 공소외 3 저축은행의 피고인 3 회사에 대한 펀드에 대한 투자금 규모를 유지하기 위하여 무리하게 공소외 1 재단이나 공소외 2 대학을 속이면서까지 유상증자를 유치할 필요가 있었는지 의심스럽고, 피고인 1이나 피고인 3 회사와 공소외 3 저축은행이 통상의 사업적 이해관계를 뛰어넘는 결정적이고도 특별한 관계, 즉 어느 한쪽이 시장에서 퇴출될 경우 다른 한쪽이 이를 반드시 저지하여야 할 관계에 이르렀다고도 보이지 않는다.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's aforementioned fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

The above determination by the court below is justifiable even if the following circumstances, etc., which were revealed by considering the evidence presented prior to the above circumstances, were observed.

(1) Defendant 1 denied the public offering with Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11, an executive officer of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank. According to the court of the court below’s judgment, Nonindicted 10: “The prosecutor investigated Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank on or around April 201, at the group level, that it was higher in BISD value; the prosecutor investigated Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s officers and employees, including Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank at the time, on the premise that they fall under the other party of deception such as Nonindicted 1 Foundation and Nonindicted 2 University; and “When the public prosecutor disclosed the true financial statements, it is difficult for Nonindicted 1 to conclude that the Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1 conspired to the effect that it was impossible to make an investment, such as participating in capital increase in the instant case’s capital increase?” It is difficult for the prosecutor to conclude that the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 testified to the effect that the Defendant 1 made an investment in each of the above part of the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 made an investment.”

(2) In the court of the court below, Nonindicted 11 stated in the court of the court below that “it is not a situation where Defendant 1 should receive KRW 100 billion from Nonindicted Foundation 1 and Nonindicted 2 to prevent Defendant 3’s loss.” In addition, Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11 stated in the court of the court below that “it is not a situation where Nonindicted 3 would have to receive KRW 100 billion from Nonindicted Foundation 1 and Nonindicted 2 University in order to prevent Defendant 3’s loss. It was revealed that Nonindicted 3 did not have known that it was an internal account of Nonindicted 3’s savings account at the time of the public prosecutor’s investigation after the business suspension order was issued by Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, and that it was not revealed that it was before the Financial Supervisory Service’s explanation at the time of the public prosecutor’s order.” Thus, it was difficult to find that Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 111 did not appear to have known the aforementioned fact at the time of the public prosecutor’s announcement of Nonindicted 3’s savings account at the time of this case.”

(3) Examining the balance and proportion of Nonindicted Bank 3’s savings banks (increased No. 65) submitted by Defendant 1’s defense counsel, around June 30, 2010, around June 30, 2010, Defendant 3’s total consignment amounting to KRW 10,715,003,2 billion. Nonindicted Bank 3’s consignment amounting to KRW 166.8 billion is KRW 1.56% (On the other hand, Nonindicted Bank 3’s consignment amounting to KRW 689.78,88,000) and Nonindicted Bank 2’s consignment amounting to KRW 140.9 billion and KRW 16.12 billion, Nonindicted Company 1’s consignment amounting to KRW 132%, and Nonindicted Bank 3’s financial motive or contribution amounting to KRW 16.6 billion is difficult to recognize that Nonindicted Bank 3’s contribution to Nonindicted Bank 13’s savings was likely to have been intentionally set up in the market.

(4) The prosecutor asserts to the effect that Defendant 1 had an interest in property before proposing the Fund. The reason why Defendant 1 gave prior written intent to make an investment is that Defendant 1 had an interest in property that Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank had to have had to have. However, the intent to make an investment is as follows: ① The intent to make an investment within the maximum of KRW 100 billion with respect to the conversion preferred interest that Defendant 3 would have issued by Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank: Provided, That this intent is not an investment promise, and its final decision is confirmed in accordance with our internal decision making process, and even according to the above language, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 3 had an interest in the transfer preferential interest that Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank issues, and ② Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11’s investment in the instant case based on Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s officers, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant 1 had an interest in property prior to attracting an investment.

(5) The prosecutor asserts to the effect that Defendant 1 was aware of the financial status of the Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s insolvency, because he had an interview with the Director General of the Savings Bank Services Bureau, and had the Financial Supervisory Service (“Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank was aware of, and known to, the situation of, the situation of the Nonindicted 9 Savings Bank?” In order to protect investors, Defendant 1 had been aware of the financial status of the Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank. However, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant 1 had been aware of the actual financial status of the Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s financial status at the time, on the ground that he had taken the said remarks simply from the said Nonindicted 9, and had been aware of the financial status of the Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank.

(6) The prosecutor asserts to the effect that Defendant 1 did not receive the instant capital increase, and thus, Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 suffered a big impact on the credit of his company. Thus, the prosecutor asserts that there was motive to commit the instant crime in order to prevent such intangible loss. However, even if Defendant 1’s capital increase was made, it was anticipated that the financial situation of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank would become more difficult even if Defendant 1 did so, and there was no special circumstance to deem that Defendant 1 had induced the instant capital increase by intentionally presenting false data to Defendant 1 while accepting the risk of failure of the instant investment by Nonindicted Foundation 1 or Nonindicted 2’s college for his intangible interest (the same applies where Defendant 1 or Defendant 3 suffered a big impact on his credit).

(7) Other circumstances cited by the prosecutor in the grounds of appeal alone are difficult to deem that this part of the facts charged is sufficiently proven.

2) Whether false data was presented and explained

A) As to the presentation and explanation of the instant additional data

(1) Whether a false statement or presentation of financial advisory fees and BISD ratio is made or made

(A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that the instant additional data stated that the ratio of BS as of June 2010 of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank was 1.02% from 1.02% to 6.30% from the date of the sale of bonds to Nonindicted Company 20, Nonindicted Company 1’s KRW 100 billion, and that each increase was made again 8.13% from the capital increase with the capital increase of KRW 1,40 billion from the Nonindicted Foundation 1 Foundation, and that the amount of connection BS as above was calculated on the premise that the Plaintiff recognized the financial advisory fee of KRW 140 billion as profits, unlike the non-indicted 21’s non-indicted 21’s non-indicted 5’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 21’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 21’s non-indicted 21’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s contribution.

① The numerical value 1.02% of the connection BISD ratio between Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank as indicated in the instant additional data is the same as the connecting BISD ratio in the instant report, prepared by the Financial Supervisory Service around July 2010 by Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, as a result of the inspection issued by the Financial Supervisory Service to Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank on June 2010 (provisional Note 22) confirmation and the Financial Supervisory Service around July 2010.

② As of June 2010, Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s capital increase after Nonindicted 3’s capital increase as of the end of this case’s additional data is 8.13% as of June 201, the connection BISD ratio is substantially same as that of the connection BISD ratio after the Financial Supervisory Service’s capital increase after the

③ Although the prosecutor asserts that this would result in the manipulation of BISD by appropriating false revenue in connection with the financial advisory fee, the Financial Supervisory Service’s final return report that stated the opinion that it is reasonable to prohibit or regulate the receipt of financial advisory fee in the same form as the present, including the financial advisory fee when preparing the final return report, calculated the connecting BISD ratio. Moreover, at the time of the preparation of the instant additional data, the said additional data did not enact any provision prohibiting the receipt of financial advisory fee against the savings bank, or do not express any administrative guidance prohibiting the receipt of financial advisory fee against the savings bank. At the time, it is difficult to see that Nonindicted 5 or Defendant 1, etc., at the time, should not recognize the financial advisory fee as the profit in calculating the connecting BISD ratio.

④ The Prosecutor argues that “the reflection of anticipated performance on June 2010” was practically derived from the intent to manipulate BISD numerical value without specifying that the instant additional data reflects KRW 140 billion in the calculation of BISD. However, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1’s assertion that the portion of the financial advisory fee was not separately stated in the main text of the instant additional data is not persuasive, on the ground that the estimated financial statements attached to the instant additional data include the revenue portion of the fee, and if the financial advisory fee is separately stated in the main text of the said additional data, it may be misunderstood that the financial advisory fee was generated in addition to the revenue of the fee stated in the estimated financial statements attached thereto.

(B) Judgment of the court below

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's aforementioned fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

The above determination by the court below is justifiable even if the following circumstances, etc., which were revealed by considering the evidence presented prior to the above circumstances, were observed.

① The premise of this part of the facts charged is that “Defendant 1 was aware of the financial status of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank and its affiliated savings bank in detail, but instructed Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 5 to the effect that the investment proposal and evidentiary materials are “unconditioned to the effect that the instant capital increase with consideration may be necessarily induced.” However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to acknowledge this part of the premise, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

② The prosecutor appears to have asserted that “The instant additional data has changed in comparison with the draft.” However, whether the instant additional data is false or not should be determined in comparison with the draft of the instant additional data, rather than with the estimated financial statements and other objective data offered by Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank (the draft of the instant additional data is also based on the estimated financial statements, etc. on the side of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank). However, as the lower court determined properly at the lower court, it cannot be readily concluded that the instant additional data linked BS ratio of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank was false when comparing the estimated financial statements and other objective data.

③ Although the Financial Supervisory Service’s final return was made on March 31, 2010 and the instant additional data was made on the basis of the end of June 2010, it cannot be concluded that the connecting BISD ratio 8.13% is clearly different from that of the consolidated BISD ratio deposit deposit after Nonindicted 3’s subscription to new shares in the instant additional data was made on June 2010, in view of the fact that the instant additional data was made including the anticipated performance as of June 2010, it cannot be concluded that the connecting BISD ratio 8.69% is clearly different from that of the major shareholder, etc. after the issuance of new shares in the final return (the final return from the Financial Supervisory Service is written at 8.13% higher than that of the instant 8.13% higher than that of the instant additional data. This is included in the capital increase of 10 billion won as well as the capital increase of the major shareholder, etc.

④ The prosecutor asserts that “Defendant 2, etc. arbitrarily corrected and processed the entry of the instant supplementary data.” However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it by itself or there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in light of Nonindicted 21’s statement, etc., the instant supplementary data appears to have been prepared after Defendant 2, etc. exchanged and consulted with Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, e-mail, etc.

⑤ Meanwhile, since Defendant 2, etc. do not explicitly state the term “financial advisory fee” in the instant additional data, there is room to evaluate that members of the Fund Management Committee provided information completely in determining whether they will invest in the instant fund. However, even if so, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, etc., it is difficult to deem that such information may constitute a violation of the duty to explain under the civil law, etc., and immediately be subject to criminal punishment.

(2) Whether the allowance for bad debts is described and presented falsely

(A) The judgment of the court below

In the draft of the instant supplementary data sent by Nonindicted 21 for the first time to Nonindicted 5, the lower court determined that: (a) although the allowance for bad debts to be additionally established in accordance with the new criteria of the Financial Supervisory Service was stated as KRW 3,26.2 billion by linking Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank and Nonindicted 12 Savings Bank; (b) however, in the instant supplementary data, it is acknowledged that there was no other issue other than the reserve for bad debts in addition to KRW 234.2 billion as a result of the Financial Supervisory Service’s inspection; (c) however, comprehensively considering the following circumstances that can be known by comprehensively taking into account the adopted evidence, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant 1 entered the amount of the allowance for bad debts required to be accumulated in the instant supplementary data, or that there was no intention to make a false statement

① As a result of the inspection conducted by the Financial Supervisory Service on the side of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank on June 2010, the amount of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s appropriation for bad debts worth KRW 2,34.2 billion stated in the instant additional data is identical to the amount of the allowances for bad debts required in the Financial Supervisory Service’s final return report prepared by the Financial Supervisory Service around July 2010.

② Paid-in capital increase and the instant fund management committee’s focus on the discussion was Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s connection BISD ratio, and the amount of the appropriation for bad debts required to be accumulated was affected by the BISD ratio, and the BISD ratio was set out in the instant additional data as the connection BISD ratio including Nonindicted 12 Savings Bank.

③ However, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1, etc.’s assertion that the amount of the bad debts fund required to be accumulated in the instant additional data is entirely persuasive in order to facilitate the determination of the change in the numerical value, which was first presented to the investor’s sole basis for Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank.

(B) Judgment of the court below

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's aforementioned fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

The above determination by the court below is justifiable even if the following circumstances, etc., which were revealed by considering the evidence presented prior to the above circumstances, were observed.

① As seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant 1 had been aware of the financial status of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank and its affiliated savings banks in detail, and ordered Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 5 to the effect that the investment proposal and evidentiary materials are infinitely satisfied so that the instant additional materials may be confined to capital increase with capital increase,” and it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 2, etc. voluntarily revised and processed the entry of the instant additional materials on account of the difference in the contents when compared with the draft of the said materials.

② The instant additional data states, “The allowance for bad debts shall be additionally accumulated in KRW 234.2 billion as a result of the inspection by the Financial Supervisory Service of the Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank.” However, the aforementioned statement itself does not contain any false statement.

③ Meanwhile, there is room to evaluate that Defendant 2, etc. did not state the allowance for bad debts in the instant additional data to be accumulated in Nonindicted 12 Savings Bank, and thus, the members of the Fund Management Committee received complete information in determining whether to invest in the instant fund. However, even if so, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is difficult to view it as an act subject to criminal punishment, whether it may constitute a violation of the duty to explain under the civil law, etc.

(3) Whether financial advisory fees, BISD ratio, allowances for bad debts, etc. are false or not

(A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s meeting of the 3rd Fund Management Committee stated that, without stating that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 recognized financial advisory fees of KRW 140 billion as profits at the 3rd Fund Management Committee, it was difficult to conclude that Defendant 1 had an intentional explanation of the 3rd Fund Management Committee or the 3rd Fund Management Committee on the following facts by comprehensively taking into account the evidence adopted by the following facts: (a) Defendant 1 did not instruct Defendant 2 or Nonindicted 5 to calculate the BISD in remuneration when preparing the instant additional data; and (b) did not separately verify the financial data, etc. presented by Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank; (c) at the 3rd Fund Management Committee meeting, Defendant 2 stated that “The 3rd Fund Management Committee was to make a return to working persons, such as Defendant 2, etc., on the 140 billion amount of financial advisory fees.” However, the lower court determined that it was difficult to conclude that Defendant 1 had an intentional explanation of the 3rd Savings Management Committee on the said additional data.

① Joint examinations on Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank began with the Board of Audit and Inspection requesting the Financial Supervisory Service to inspect the insolvency of the PF loan potential. Accordingly, while evaluating the asset soundness of the PF loan claims of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, the Financial Supervisory Service applied a new method of evaluating the business feasibility of the PF business rather than the pre-determined standard, and conducted a survey for approximately three months, and previous studies conducted a transfer of the PF business for a period of time. The most of the claims classified as normal credit, etc. were re-classified to a fixed amount of credit. Accordingly, Defendant 1 may be deemed to have been aware that the Financial Supervisory Service’s joint inspection was very strict, and most of the risk factors related to the PF loans of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, and such a determination was written in remuneration.

② The number of BISD rates stated in the instant additional data and explained by Defendant 1 at the meeting of the third fund management committee is not different from that of the final return report of the Financial Supervisory Service.

③ Defendant 1, Nonindicted 5, and Defendant 2 did not separately verify the credibility of financial data, etc. provided by Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank in relation to the BISD value of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank. However, in preparing the instant additional data, Nonindicted 5 and Defendant 2 pointed out and corrected errors such as the calculation result of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank or the calculation period of BISD value in the course of exchanging electronic mail with Nonindicted 21 on several occasions on the part of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, and confirmed whether the amount of the bad debt allowances, etc. notified to Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank is identical to that of the inspection by the Financial Supervisory Service.

(B) Judgment of the court below

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's aforementioned fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

The above determination by the court below is justifiable even if the following circumstances, etc., which were revealed by considering the evidence presented prior to the above circumstances, were observed.

(1) As seen earlier, insofar as it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant 2, etc. entered false financial advisory fees, BS ratio, allowances for bad debts, etc. in the instant additional materials, it cannot be readily concluded that such explanation is a false description that is subject to criminal punishment, even if it is separate from the violation of the duty to explain under the civil law.

② Although Defendant 2 did not explicitly indicate that the 3rd Fund Management Committee had perceived financial advisory fee of KRW 140 billion as profits, Defendant 2 explained that “this part would have been taken into account the last day of June” with respect to the BISD value of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank after the sale of the PF loan claim to Nonindicted Company 20, and explained the contents stated in each note of the instant additional data.

(4) Whether false description and presentation relating to the termination of inspection by the Financial Supervisory Service are made

(A) Prosecutor's assertion

Although Nonindicted 5 and Defendant 2 did not confirm the inspection of Nonindicted 3 savings banks at the time of proposing the instant investment fund, Nonindicted 5 and Defendant 2 stated that “the inspection of Nonindicted 3 savings banks was completed,” while preparing the instant additional data.”

(B) Determination

In the draft of the instant additional data sent by Nonindicted 21 for the first time to Nonindicted 5, it was stated that “the audit result has not yet been confirmed,” but it is recognized that the instant additional data stated “the inspection of the Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank was completed and the inspection of the Financial Supervisory Service was completed.”

However, the following circumstances revealed by considering the aforementioned evidence, i.e., ① it cannot be readily concluded that the entry in this part was false merely because the additional data of this case differs from its draft. ② Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 5 exchanged e-mails for the preparation of data several times with Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank. Nonindicted 21 stated that Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s accountant was closed at around June 16, 2010, and ③ Nonindicted 5, etc. understood the meaning of “the prosecutor was terminated at the site,” and, in fact, Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank and Nonindicted 12 Savings Bank’s additional data, etc. were written on the ground that it was not final and conclusive on the ground that it was not the result of the prosecutor’s statement that it was final and conclusive at the time of the preparation of the additional data of this case, ⑤ Nonindicted 2’s indictment was not the result on the ground that it was concluded on the ground that it was not on the ground that the prosecutor’s statement that it was final and conclusive on the spot.

B) Regarding the position of the Financial Supervisory Service such as the inspection result

(1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined on May 27, 2010, that Defendant 1’s speech and behavior as described in this part of the facts charged at the third fund management committee meeting, although Defendant 1 did not have any doubt as to the grounds for not announcing the inspection result of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank and affiliated savings bank at the time of Nonindicted 9’s interview at the Financial Supervisory Service around May 27, 2010, Defendant 1’s speech and behavior was acknowledged, Defendant 1’s statement and intent are strict standards for allowances to the extent that Korea’s savings banks need to close all doors when Defendant 1’s judgment applies to all savings banks. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 9’s statement and position on the joint inspection status of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank and affiliated savings bank, or that Defendant 1 had any intention as to it.

(2) Judgment of the court below

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's aforementioned fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

The above determination by the court below is justifiable even if the following circumstances, etc., which were revealed by considering the evidence presented prior to the above circumstances, were observed.

(A) As Defendant 1’s statement was appropriately determined by the lower court, the Financial Supervisory Service’s opinion that the standard for inspection of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank was strict. In fact, the Financial Supervisory Service conducted an inspection by applying a new method of evaluating the feasibility of the PF business, not by the previous determination of the overdue standard but by applying a new method of evaluating the business feasibility of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s PF loan claims. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that Defendant 1 explicitly explained the position of the Financial Supervisory Service, or that there was an intention to do so.

(B) This part of the facts charged indicated that Defendant 1 was recommended by Nonindicted 9 to “I would like to be distorted.” However, Defendant 1 stated that there was no such recommendation from Nonindicted 9 at the time, and Nonindicted 9 also stated in the court below that “I would know well the financial status of the Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank. I would like to give accurate financial information to investors of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, and would be good if I would have provided investors with accurate financial information so that there would not cause any problem in the protection of investors.” However, I clearly stated in the court below that “I would like to make it unreasonable.” However, I would like to say that I would like to say “I would like to make it unreasonable?” but I would like to say that I would like to say “I would like to make it unreasonable?” by providing investors with accurate financial information of the Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, which was submitted to the members of the Financial Supervisory Service, so I would comply with the above Nonindicted 9’s statement, and Nonindicted 11 also stated in the court below’s order that I would not grant capital increase to Defendant 1;

(C) Other circumstances cited by the prosecutor in the grounds of appeal alone are difficult to deem that this part of the facts charged is sufficiently proven.

(D) Meanwhile, Defendant 1’s this part of the speech and behavior is likely to constitute an element of fraud under the Criminal Act or fraudulent acts through deceptive means, etc. prohibited under Article 178(2) of the Capital Markets Act, but does not constitute an element of fraud under Article 178(1)2 of the Capital Markets Act, such as false statements prohibited under Article 178(1)2 of the said Act.

C) As to Defendant 1’s example of the sale of Brazil’s government bonds, Defendant 1’s demand for accumulation of the Financial Supervisory Service’s allowance for bad debts against Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank was a non-measurable and policy judgment.

(1) The judgment of the court below

Although Defendant 1 made a statement as stated in this part of the facts charged at the third fund management committee meeting, considering the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that it was difficult to view that Defendant 1’s demand for accumulation of the Financial Supervisory Service’s allowance for bad debts to Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank was due to Nonindicted 1’s non-measurable and policy judgment on the part of Defendant 1’s purchase of government bonds, and that it was difficult to view that Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s financial situation was false or that there was an intentional intent on it.

(A) Nonindicted 3’s savings bank held the Brazil’s government bonds through the fund managed by Defendant 3. However, the Financial Supervisory Service, among the joint prosecutor of the instant case, demanded that Nonindicted 3 savings bank sell the bonds, not the government bonds, since it should be deemed as the bonds, not the government bonds.

(B) Accordingly, around April 2010, Nonindicted 3’s Savings Bank requested Defendant 3 to sell Brazil’s government bonds, and Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank Nonindicted 10 was expected to increase the price of Brazil’s government bonds, and Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank Nonindicted 10 expressed complaints regarding the sale thereof according to the authoritative interpretation of the supervisory authority that it is not a national bond of Korea, and thus constitutes a bond of Korea.

(C) Meanwhile, in evaluating the asset soundness of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s PF loan claims, the Financial Supervisory Service applied the method of evaluating the feasibility of Nonindicted 3’s PF loan claims, contrary to the criteria prior to the transfer, and Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank refused to affix the seal to the provisional confirmation document and went against it.

(D) Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, Defendant 1’s opinion that the supervisory authority was inspecting Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank as a whole with too strict standards, and as such, it appears only to have discussed the case of the Brazil State bonds in the same way. In other words, Defendant 1 mentioned as if the issue of the allowance for bad debts was related to the allowance for bad debts without confirming the accurate reason that Defendant 1 had the Financial Supervisory Service sell the State bonds boomed to Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, but it is difficult to view it as an intentional explanation in light of the purport and flow of the overall stories as above.

(2) Judgment of the court below

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the records, the lower court’s fact-finding and determination as above are justifiable and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor (it is difficult to see that this part of the facts charged is sufficiently proven solely on the circumstances cited by the prosecutor in the grounds of appeal). Moreover, this part of Defendant 1’s speech and behavior is likely to constitute an element of fraudulent unfair trading by deceptive means, etc. prohibited under Article 178(2) of the Capital Markets Act, or an element of fraud under the Criminal Act, and does not constitute an element of an illegal trading by a false statement, etc. prohibited under Article 178(1)2 of the Capital Markets Act.

D) As to the part on Defendant 1’s false explanation about the transparency of the large shareholders of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank

(1) The judgment of the court below

Although Defendant 1 made a statement at the third fund management committee meeting as stated in this part of the facts charged, considering the following circumstances, comprehensively considering the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that it was difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 1 made a false statement to the effect that the situation of deterioration in business management caused by the illegal act of the large shareholder, etc. was not to be punished, because the large shareholder, etc. of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank operated Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank in a sound manner without any unlawful act, or that there was an intentional intent on it.

(A) Defendant 1 discussed transparency in the process of emphasizing that it was due to Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s efforts by its major shareholders and management, etc. to grow up to the industry level savings bank.

(B) The focus of Nonindicted 3’s talks before and after a transparent talks was that if Nonindicted 3’s savings bank resolves only the issue of allowance for bad debts due to joint inspection by the Financial Supervisory Service, continuous growth is predicted and there is no problem in dividend payment.

(C) Defendant 1 merely stated, “Nonindicted Co. 3’s savings bank has shown an annual interest of KRW 50 billion from KRW 60 billion to KRW 60 billion in the past five years, and in light of this, it is determined that its degree of interest can be seen even within the past year.” It does not seem to be clear to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 3’s savings bank’s business deterioration situation due to a major shareholder, etc. does not occur.

(2) Judgment of the court below

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's aforementioned fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

The above determination by the court below is justifiable even if the following circumstances, etc., which were revealed by considering the evidence presented prior to the above circumstances, were observed.

(A) The prosecutor asserts that, by Defendant 1’s speaking as stated in this part of the facts charged, the financial statements of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, stating that Defendant 1 paid 50 billion won or more to KRW 60 billion each year during the past five years, and that Defendant 1 granted credibility to the financial statements of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank. However, as seen earlier, in light of the fact that Defendant 1 was not aware of the fact that the financial statements of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank were window dressinged, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 intentionally made this part of the statement to give credibility to the financial statements of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank.

(B) Other circumstances cited by the prosecutor in the grounds of appeal are difficult to deem that this part of the facts charged are sufficiently proven. Meanwhile, Defendant 1’s speech and behavior is likely to constitute an element of fraudulent unfair trading by deceptive means, etc., which is prohibited under Article 178(2) of the Capital Markets Act, or a crime of fraud under the Criminal Act, and does not constitute an element of fraud by false statement, etc. prohibited under Article 178(1)2 of the Capital Markets Act.

E) As to the part that Defendant 1 did not notify the important facts affecting the investment judgment, such as the financial situation of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank and its major shareholders, and the extreme conflict of interest between the investor and the investor, known to Defendant 1 in the course of managing various funds related to Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank.

(1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the foregoing facts constituted “important matters necessary to prevent harm” under Article 178(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, on October 2010, the lower court determined that: (a) it was in the process of disposing of the entire amount equivalent to KRW 55% of the shares in Nonindicted 23 Savings Bank, which Defendant 3 acquired through the creation of private equity funds at the time of the third fund management committee meeting; (b) Nonindicted Company 24, etc., in relation to the knives fund of the knives of knives of the instant case, planned to receive KRW 40 billion from Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank by exercising put option to put in place against Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank; (c) however, taking into account the following circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the said facts constituted “important matters necessary to not cause harm” under

(A) In principle, it is difficult to view that all transaction relationships between a seller and an investor in the sale of financial investment instruments are “important matters necessary to avoid harming people” under Article 178(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.

(B) In addition, as determined earlier, Defendant 1 did not accurately know all the financial and management conditions of the savings bank, etc., but knew only some of the circumstances due to the business transaction relationship with Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, etc., Defendant 1, at the time of soliciting Nonindicted 1 to invest in the Fund, did not enter the fact that Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank was scheduled to take over the shares of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank from Nonindicted 24 limited liability companies, etc. in the product proposal, etc., but it is difficult to view it as an act subject to criminal punishment immediately.

(C) This part of the facts charged seems to include the purport that the failure of Nonindicted Foundation 1, etc. to explain that the amount equivalent to the paid-in capital increase for Nonindicted Foundation 6’s capital increase is used as the paid-in capital increase for Nonindicted Bank 6’s capital increase also constitutes an omission of important matters. However, whether Nonindicted Foundation 1 or Nonindicted University 2 would use the paid-in capital increase for any purpose without specifically stipulating the purpose or plan for the use of the paid-in capital at the time of investing money in the Fund is a strategic issue of Nonindicted Bank

(2) Judgment of the court below

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's aforementioned fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

In light of the following circumstances, the court below’s aforementioned determination is just even if Defendant 1’s assertion of investment, which Defendant 1 delivered to Nonindicted Bank 3 savings bank, was merely an investment intent as seen earlier, and Nonindicted 3 savings bank was also one of the customers of Defendant 3, and even if Nonindicted 3 savings bank did not notify Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 of the fact that Defendant 1 first delivered the instant intent of investment to Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1, etc.’s assertion of investment was completely persuasive.

3) Whether there was an intentional negligence with Defendant 1

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that Defendant 1’s perception or acceptance of various data on the part of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, which served as the basis for preparing the pertinent material, could be false, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge any negligence in violation of Article 178(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, i.e., the perception or intent to explain it to the other party after preparing the instant product proposal, etc. based on such data.

① As seen earlier, Defendant 1 had a critical interest in the existence of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, and it does not necessarily seem to have been aware that Nonindicted 1, etc. was in the position to bring about investment decisions, or that Nonindicted 3’s financial status was to correspond to the internal organ.

② In preparing documents, such as the instant product proposal, in relation to the sale of the Fund, Defendant 1, Nonindicted 5, and Defendant 2 basically considered the financial statements, etc. of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank published in the electronic disclosure system of the Financial Supervisory Service as primary data. In the process of exchanging e-mails to prepare data several times with Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, Nonindicted 3’s calculation results and the point of time of calculating the BISD ratio were pointed out and corrected.

③ Although Defendant 3 attempted to conduct an inspection of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank on the first side of Defendant 3, Nonindicted 3’s audit was sent from Nonindicted 11 to Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s auditor, “At present, Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank is conducting the inspection of the Financial Supervisory Service, and thus, it would be desirable to substitute it as a result of the inspection of the Financial Supervisory Service.” In addition, it is difficult to deem that the financial investment business entity should undergo an inspection of the invested entity once in selling the invested goods. Moreover, it is difficult to deem that at the time Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank was conducting the special inspection of the Financial Supervisory Service, etc. upon the request of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and thus, it appears that it is within the scope of judgment possible as a financial investment business entity.

④ In preparing the instant product proposal and other materials, the Defendants 2 and other practitioners confirmed that Nonindicted 3’s savings bank confirmed whether various figures, such as the BS ratio, known to Nonindicted 3’s savings bank, are identical to the results of the inspection by the Financial Supervisory Service, and the actual amount of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s consolidated BISD ratio, and the amount of allowances for bad debts to be accumulated in the instant product proposal, etc. is identical to the result of the inspection by

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and determination as above are just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

B. The part concerning Nonindicted Foundation 1 among the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the fraudulent unfair trading (violation of Article 178(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act) by Defendant 1’s fraudulent means, etc.

1) The judgment of the court below

The court below determined as follows: (a) the term “use of deceptive scheme” under Article 178(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act refers to an act of using means, plans, or tricks for the purpose of deceiving trading partners or unspecified investors and inducing them to commit a certain act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6335, Mar. 10, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2008Do635, Mar. 10, 201; Supreme Court Decision 208Do635, Mar. 10, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2008Do635, Mar. 10, 201; and (b) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to conclude that Defendant 1 “use of deceptive scheme” as prohibited under Article 178(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, or that there was any motive or intent to commit such act; and (c) there was no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the above-mentioned evidence in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

C. Part concerning Nonindicted Foundation 1 among Defendant 1’s violation of special law (Fraud)

1) The judgment of the court below

In addition to the judgment of the court below as above 4. A, in full view of the circumstances such as the fact that Defendant 1 sought special measures for the protection of the investment funds of Nonindicted Foundation 1, including the so-called dnasul clause, in organizing the subscription for capital increase with consideration, the court below determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 deceiving Nonindicted Foundation 1 to induce the participation of Nonindicted Foundation 1 in the capital increase with consideration for capital increase with consideration, thereby deceiving Nonindicted Foundation 1 to acquire 50 billion won, or to have intentionally acquired it, or conspired with Nonindicted Savings Bank 3’s management, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the above-mentioned evidence in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

D. The part concerning Defendant 1’s fraudulent unfair trading (Article 178(1)2 and Article 178(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act) and the part concerning each of the non-indicted 2 universities, among the violation of the special circumstances (Fraud)

1) The judgment of the court below

The court below determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to support the fact that the non-indicted 14 participated in the third fund management committee meeting with the delegation from the right to make investment decisions by the non-indicted 2’s right to decision on the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the non-indicted 14 was proved without any reasonable doubt (the non-indicted 14 stated in the court below that the non-indicted 14 was not entrusted with the right to decide on the investment with respect to the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the non-indicted 2 university) and that the non-indicted 1 cannot be recognized as having committed any fraudulent unfair trading or fraudulent act against the non-indicted 2 university, and even if the act as stated in the facts charged against the non-indicted 14 can be seen as an act against the non-indicted 2 university, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to recognize that the defendant 1 committed any unfair

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the above-mentioned evidence in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

E. The part on Defendant 2’s violation of the Capital Markets Act due to Defendant 2’s fraudulent unfair trading

1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that: (a) Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 1 to conduct an unfair trading in collusion with Nonindicted Foundation 1 and Nonindicted University 2; and (b) the specific content thereof is the same as indicated in the violation of the Capital Markets Act due to a fraudulent unfair trading among the facts charged against Defendant 1; (c) on the grounds as seen in the foregoing 4.A., the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor on the ground as seen in the foregoing 4.a., it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 2 committed an unfair trading in collusion with Defendant 1, etc. with Nonindicted Foundation 1 or Nonindicted University 2, or that there was an intentional intent thereof; and (d) there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the above-mentioned evidence in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

F. The part on Defendant 3’s violation of the Capital Markets Act due to Defendant 3’s fraudulent unfair trading

1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 committed a fraudulent unfair act prohibited under Articles 178(1)2 and 178(2) of the Capital Markets Act with respect to the business of each of Defendant 3, or that there was an intentional act, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the above-mentioned evidence in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

G. The part on the alteration of a private document and the uttering of a private document by Defendant 4

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that, around September 15, 2011, Defendant 4 modified, without authority, a private document concerning the certification of the name, Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, Nonindicted 25, etc., for the purpose of exercising the right at the office of Defendant 3 via Nonindicted 5, and submitted it to the prosecution investigator who is aware of the fact on September 16, 201.

2) The judgment of the court below

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court held that it is difficult to view that the file for the performance of management normalization (revision) was genuinely formed by Nonindicted 25, etc. at the time, and that this cannot be deemed as a document for a crime related to documents under the Criminal Act, and therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have altered private documents, and therefore, the crime of uttering of altered private documents was not established.

A) On June 23, 2010, Defendant 3’s Nonindicted Co. 5 received a written plan (revision) for the implementation of management normalization from Nonindicted Co. 21 on the part of Nonindicted Co. 3 Savings Bank by electronic mail. There are many differences between the file of the implementation plan for management normalization (revision) and Nonindicted Co. 3’s implementation plan finally submitted to the Financial Supervisory Service around July 30, 2010.

B) There is doubt as to whether Nonindicted 5’s file for the performance of management normalization (revision) sent by Nonindicted 21 through e-mail was genuinely formed by Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s representative director, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, and Nonindicted 10, etc., the title holder of the document. Rather, considering the above differences, at the time, it seems that the said difference still existed in the stage of preparing the business practitioners of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank.

C) Even if the file for the implementation of management normalization (revision) was duly formed by Nonindicted 25, etc. at the time, the file for the implementation of management normalization (revision) that was stored in the Defendant 3’s server is shown on the screen whenever the relevant program is implemented and cannot be deemed continuously fixed on the screen. Therefore, it cannot be deemed as a document for a crime related to documents under the Criminal Act.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

The crime of altering private documents is established when a person without authority has a risk of undermining public credibility by forging new probative value by altering the content of a document in the name of another person to the extent that the identity is not undermined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 201). Meanwhile, in the case of a document under the Criminal Act, a document refers to a copy by a mechanical method that makes it possible for a person without authority to continuously present the original, which is an expression of intention or idea on the object, or an original, which is an expression of social function and reputation on the object continuously, or an original, which is an expression of opinion or idea on the object, and its social function and credibility, etc., as evidence for important matters in legal and social life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do788, Jan. 26, 2006). The document appearing on a computer monitor does not constitute a continuous reaction of 201 square meters on the screen, etc.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's aforementioned fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

In light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned fact-finding and judgment of the court below is justified even if Defendant 4’s files prepared by a computer program do not themselves constitute “documents” which are the objects of crimes related to documents, and even if they were partially corrected to a computer file, they cannot be viewed as a document alteration crime if they were sent by electronic mail from Nonindicted 21 accountant, who was in charge of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s business, to be completed and printed out in writing before they were sent to Defendant 2 by electronic mail. The file of “business normalization implementation plan (revision)” is deemed to have been completed and output in writing after being sent to Defendant 3’s side. Even after being sent to Defendant 3’s side, the file prepared by the computer program does not constitute “documents” which are the objects of crimes related to documents.

5. Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing on the same Defendants as Defendant 1, Defendant 3, Defendant 4 and the prosecutor

A. Whether Defendant 1 and Defendant 3’s unreasonable sentencing is unfair

Defendant 1 was working as a fund management member of Nonindicted Foundation 1 for about four to five years prior to the failure of investment in Nonindicted Company 3’s Savings Bank. Defendant 1 had a considerable operating profit on the side of Nonindicted Foundation 1 while working as a fund management member of Nonindicted Foundation 1. Defendant 1 did not have any room to regard that the proposer’s decision was made freely and freely talk with Nonindicted Foundation 1’s fund management member in the atmosphere where he was trusted his ability between Nonindicted Foundation 1’s fund management member and his practitioners. Defendant 1 made efforts in the course of managing Nonindicted Company 2’s fund through Defendant 3, as well as the fund operation of Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 2’s college. Defendant 1 did not have any history of criminal punishment; Defendant 1 did not provide a conclusive judgment for a large number of ordinary investors and ordinary people; Defendant 3’s direct investment profits are not a degree of direct investment charges to the extent that the above funds are more favorable to Defendant 3’s funds.

However, Defendant 1 used very decent and strong expressions in the process of soliciting investment; Defendant 1’s foundation and Nonindicted 2’s college were unable to recover at all 50 billion won of investment money as Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, which is the source of investment in financial investment instruments, left the market; Defendant 1’s contribution was a large amount of property loss even after considering Nonindicted 1 Foundation and the size of the fund operation of Nonindicted 2 University; Nonindicted 1 Foundation mainly provides scholarships and school funds; Nonindicted 2 University is mainly paying scholarships and school expenses; Defendant 1 appears to have not even been able to give a genuine apology as to the fact that Defendant 1 appears to show a conclusive and reliable speech and behavior in the process of soliciting investment in the process of Nonindicted 1 Foundation or Nonindicted 2 University and countermeasures, etc. after the occurrence of the instant case; Defendant 1 was merely a usual expression or merely a mere speech, and it did not go against this part of the crime.

In addition, taking into account all the circumstances that serve as the conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant 1’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the above sentence imposed by the court below on the said Defendants is too heavy or too uneasible.

Therefore, all of the above defendants and prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing are without merit.

B. Whether Defendant 4’s inappropriate sentencing is unfair

After the completion of search and seizure of the computer files, etc. of the prosecutor's office, the act of altering evidence of this case was conducted after the prosecutor demanded the prosecutor to output the file directly from the defendant 3 company server for the convenience of business and clarity of evidence relations. The prosecutor identified that the file was altered in the investigation process regardless of the defendant 4's act of submitting the altered evidence, and that there was no criminal record against the defendant 4, etc. are favorable to the above defendant.

However, in light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed by altering the evidence of another person's criminal case and submitting it to an investigation agency to cause serious danger to the criminal justice function of the country, which is the discovery of substantial truth and the exercise of proper penal authority, and thus, the relevant crime is heavy, and even around March 201, Defendant 4 deleted a management normalization implementation plan (revision) file stored on the computer of Defendant 3's office, it does not seem that the act of altering the evidence of this case and using the altered evidence was not likely to have been done contingent. Even according to the statement of the above defendant, the crime of this case was committed in its own judgment without the instruction of superior or unfair pressure, and the suspicion that Defendant 1, etc. was investigated was a very heavy issue.

In addition, considering all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the above defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the above sentence of the defendant sentenced by the court below is too heavy or too unreasonable.

Therefore, the above defendant and prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing also are without merit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by Defendant 1, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 and the appeal by the prosecutor against the Defendants is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yellow Hahn (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 3 Company” or “Defendant 3 Company”.

Note 2) The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”).

3) At around 07:30 on April 6, 2010, Defendant 1’s meeting of the Second Fund Management Committee (hereinafter “the meeting of the Second Fund Management Committee”) in 2010 held in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 2 omitted) ○○○○○ hotel △△△△△△ (hereinafter “Nonindicted Foundation 1”) (hereinafter “the meeting of the Second Fund Management Committee”), Defendant 1 is required to set aside the allowances excessively, and “The Government is now demanding to set up the allowances. On the other hand, the low will issue those items such as the preferential share for repayment conversion, and may make them to put up 12-13% of the total put puts and puts. It is so unreasonable to receive. This is because the other party is needed, so doing, and if us is able to make investments more than three years and five billion won, it is not necessary to do so, regardless of the need to do so.”

(4) Defendant 1 and Defendant 3’s defense counsel did not separately state on the grounds of appeal an unreasonable sentencing as a clear item with respect to the above Defendants. However, in the conclusion of the grounds of appeal, Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 stated in the purport that “a minor sentence may be sentenced to the maximum punishment by taking into account the circumstances of the Defendants.” As such, the said Defendants also asserted unfair sentencing.

Note 5) This refers to Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank’s projects for the development of Cambodian City (hereinafter referred to as “ Cambodian projects”) in the name of Nonindicted 7 Limited Company and Nonindicted 8.

6) This means that Nonindicted 10, the management officer of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, and Nonindicted 11, around March 2010, asked Defendant 1 to participate in capital increase with consideration equivalent to KRW 100 billion; hereinafter “instant capital increase consideration”).

Note 7) hereinafter referred to as “Special Security Act.”

Note 8) Nos. 1,295, 1,298 of trial records

9) Face 9, 28, of the examination of witness in the fifth trial of the court of the first instance.

Note 10) No. 1,514 of trial records No. 3

Note 11) No. 667, No. 668 of trial records

Note 12) 30 of the examination of witness protocol of the fifth trial date

Note 13) The facts charged in the judgment of the court below are as follows. A. (1) (the Defendants 1 and 3 savings bank management, Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 11’s motive for the crime) and (2) (b) (the Defendant 1’s awareness of the financial status of the savings bank and its affiliated savings bank and the criminal intent).

주14) 이는 피고인 3 회사가 2008. 5.경 설정한 ◇◇◇ ♤♤♤♤ 사모 특별자산 투자신탁 제1호(이하 ‘◇◇◇ ♤♤♤♤ 제1호 펀드’라고 한다)를 의미한다.

Note 15) This means a joint inspection conducted between the Financial Supervisory Service and the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation on Nonindicted 3 savings banks and affiliated savings banks (hereinafter “instant joint inspection”) between March 2, 2010 and June 29.

Note 16) Nos. 3,822 to 3,825 of the trial records

Note 17) No. 3,521, 3,522 of the public trial records

Note 18) No. 3,522, 3,537 of trial records

Note 19) No. 3,530, 3,531 of the public trial records, No. 8-3,832 of the public trial records

In other words, in the statement of grounds of appeal, the prosecutor stated that “Defendant 1 was aware that the window dressing accounting facts of Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank (which is a separate crime or accounting process to conceal the insolvency already occurred) and that Defendant 1 was suspended for 7 months only after this case’s investment and that the issue of capital increase with consideration was closed.” However, the prosecutor stated that Defendant 1’s attraction of capital increase with consideration to capital increase is merely an assertion by ascertaining the issues of the present proposal by mistake, and the contents of the facts charged by the prosecution are not included.”

Note 21) At the time of attracting capital increase with consideration for capital increase, Nonindicted 9, who was the Director of the Savings Bank Service at the time of attracting capital increase, stated in the court of the court below that “(which is confirmed to have been processed as a result of the prosecutor’s investigation) KRW 2.40 million, but low-incomes clearly did not know the facts of the prosecutor’s investigation results at the time of the prosecution investigation.” (No. 1,648 of the trial record No. 4).

Note 22) This is presented by the Financial Supervisory Service on June 2010 to Nonindicted 3 Savings Banks and Nonindicted 12 Savings Banks after calculating an interim inspection order with respect to Nonindicted 3 Savings Banks and Nonindicted 3 Savings Banks, which are summary of the inspection results (hereinafter “provisional confirmation confirmation”).

주23) 이는 금융감독원이 2010. 7.경 작성한 것으로서 이 사건 공동검사의 최종 검사 결과가 담겨 있는 ▷▷계열 5개 저축은행 부문검사 귀임보고서(이하 ‘금융감독원 최종 귀임보고서‘라고 한다)를 의미한다.

Note 24) In the court of the court below, Nonindicted 21 stated in the court of the court below that “I think there is no reason for Defendant 3 to arbitrarily manipulate or process the content thereof in the process of delivering Nonindicted 1 Foundation and Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank in the process of delivering the reply to the materials or questions relating to the issue of capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the capital gains to be received from the Defendant 3,” and that “I would not modify this phrase at the Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank, Nonindicted 11 Auditor or Nonindicted 22,” and that “I would like to say I would not modify this phrase. In most cases, I would like to say that I would like to say I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say, “I would like to give an additional response to this material,” and that I would like to say I would like to say I would like to arbitrarily manipulate, “I would have no reason for the Defendant Company 37,75” in the court of the court below.

Note 25) No. 2, No. 554 of trial records

Note 26) Nonindicted 5 stated in the court of the court below that “I would not know whether the prosecutor of the Financial Supervisory Service was actually closed or whether the result of the inspection was confirmed, etc., in the court of the court below, Nonindicted 5 stated that Nonindicted 21 could not make a demand to add the phrase “the prosecutor of the Financial Supervisory Service was terminated” to Nonindicted 21, and there was no reason to make such a demand. The above phrase is memoryd with Nonindicted 21’s sending.” (No. 3,913 of the trial record).

Note 27) No. 3,681 of trial records

Note 28) The prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment on November 1, 2013 to this part of the indictment, and the court of the lower court permitted the amendment of the indictment on the date of the 34th trial held on the same day, and the facts charged prior to the amendment of the indictment are “..... the Director-General in charge took an interview with the Financial Supervisory Service before the amendment of the indictment.. The reason why it is the most difficult to announce that ........ the reason why s/he did not interview and speak was applied to all savings banks, is that when applying the criteria for the demand for allowances to the savings bank to the savings bank to all savings banks, s/he shall close the Korean Savings Bank.” The reason why the Director-General of the Financial Supervisory Service did not issue the results of the joint inspection, and Defendant 1 directly told Defendant 1 as it is, and Defendant 9’s speech.

Note 29) Nos. 1,598, 1,599, 1,618 of trial records

Note 30) No. 3543 of trial records

31) Meanwhile, the prosecutor asserts that property gains obtained in violation of Article 178(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act include “unlimited profit”. However, as seen earlier, as long as Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have violated Article 178(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, it is not further examined whether Defendant 1 acquired an unlimited profit.