A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

(c)an accusation;

(d) Interference with business;

(e) Defamation;

1.(a)(b)(c)(e);

BEC, EL

# 71 18 HH HH HH - HÀ

Seoul E TE in its original domicile

2. (c) ;

A person shall be appointed.

Seoul Residence

Seoul basic domicile

3.2

019C - -)

EDTRLE IE at the time of housing development;

Reference domicile Kimcheon-si DTM

Defendant Kim Kim, OT and Prosecutor

Attorney Park Jong-young (Korean National Assembly for Defendant 1, 3)

Law Firm MITI (for defendantT)

Attorney Yang-soo, Attorneys Kim So-young, and 0

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Do1857 Decided June 14, 2007

September 1, 2008

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to each of the grounds of appeal by Defendant Kim Jong and Defendant O, the grounds of appeal by Defendant Kim Jong, Defendant KimM’s grounds of appeal by the public defender, and Defendant O’s defense counsel are also examined.

A. In the case of defamation by publicly alleging false facts as to Defendant Kim Kim, in determining whether a false fact is a false fact, the determination shall be made by taking into account the overall purport of the facts alleged in question, whether the part that is not consistent with the objective fact is an important part. The existence of the possibility of dissemination should be made by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the process and content of the statement; (b) the method and place of the statement; (c) the relationship between the person and the Defendant or the injured party; and

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the employment evidence and comprehensively taken account of the facts recognized as such, it recognizes the performance of a statement at the time and place stated in the criminal facts in its decision by Defendant Kim as its main contents are false and likely to spread to others. The above Defendant can spread the content of his statement to others.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above selection of evidence, fact-finding and judgment of the court below can be justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to defamation, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. The criminal intent in the crime of false accusation is not necessarily required to be a conclusive intentional act, and it is also sufficient to establish the crime of false accusation by reporting the fact that the reporter is true, and it does not require conviction that the reported fact is false. The degree of the statement of false accusation is sufficient if it is sufficient to urge investigators to exercise investigative authority, and it does not necessarily have to specify the facts constituting the crime. On the other hand, whether the reported fact is false or not should be determined by the core or content of the reported fact in relation to the elements of the crime.

The court below held that it can be recognized that the defendant Kim, the defendant Kim, and the victim Kim, etc. reported false facts with the intention to have the defendant Kim, the defendant Kim, the defendant Kim, etc. punished criminal punishment. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's above selection of the evidence, fact-finding, and determination are justified and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime of false accusation due to violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

C. Article 39(1) of the amended Criminal Code as to the remaining grounds of appeal by Defendant Kim Jong-hwan provides that when there is a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes, the punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity with the case where the crime and the crime for which judgment have become final and conclusive are concurrently adjudicated, and in this case, the punishment may be mitigated or exempted. In such a case, the issue of whether to reduce or exempt the punishment pursuant to the above provision of the Criminal Code belongs to the court's discretionary discretion, and on different premise, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the court below did not reduce or exempt the punishment against

In addition, in this case where a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for less than 10 years against Defendant Kim is imposed, the reason that the sentencing at the court below is excessive cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) by Defendant Kim Jong- and Defendant Female

The lower court, based on its adopted evidence, found the facts as indicated in its reasoning and based on the facts of its recognition, upon the request of a stock company to withdraw a bill, even if all of the evidentiary materials and arguments submitted by the prosecutor are considered.

In light of the records, the selection of evidence, fact-finding and decision of the court below is justified and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or breach of trust due to violation of the rules of evidence as asserted in the grounds of appeal.

B. As to Defendant Kim's fraud by discount of promissory notes (1) on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the second paragraph of the charge)

In light of the facts and the facts of the recognition, the court below held that even if all of the evidence and arguments submitted by the prosecutor are taken into account, they cannot be deemed to have been delivered two copies of a promissory note discount and discounted the above promissory note to the above corporation by means of the discount of a promissory note, as shown in the facts charged against the defendant Kim Kim Kim, or that the above TRM corporation's act of discounting the above promissory note constitutes a deception against the above corporation. In light of the records, the court below's above selection of evidence and finding of facts and finding of facts are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to deception of fraud (Article 2-C (2) of the facts charged), as alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below's assertion that this part of the court below's grounds of appeal cannot be found to have been erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts against the rules of evidence and the facts alleged in the grounds of appeal, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the evidence and finding of facts in this part of the first instance.

C. As to Defendant’s interference with Defendant’s business

The court below held that even if there are various evidentiary materials or arguments submitted by the prosecutor based on their employment evidence, it cannot be deemed as a case of using deceptive schemes or force in the crime of interference with business solely on the application of a provisional disposition prohibiting disposal of real estate or filing a lawsuit claiming registration of transfer of ownership, etc. as to part of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the Hannam-dong, and even if all of the evidentiary materials or arguments submitted by the prosecutor are taken into account, it cannot be deemed as a case of using deceptive schemes or force in the crime of interference with business. In light of the records, the court below's above selection of evidence, fact-finding and determination are justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

3. Therefore, all appeals by Defendant Kim, Defendant O and Prosecutor are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae 1

Justices Park Si-hwan

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Nung-hwan