Defendant

Defendant

Lee Jae-deok

Attorney Or-ju et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Gohap1462 Decided June 4, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts about the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (hereinafter "violation of Special Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)").

In order to establish the crime of violation of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against the Defendant, ① the deposit amount of KRW 33 billion (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”) which is the object thereof should have been actually owned by Nonindicted Co. 1 Company (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”), and ② the status of the Defendant as the custodian of the deposit of this case should be recognized, and ③ the Defendant should have withdrawn the deposit of this case in order to discharge his obligation.

However, the deposit of this case that the Defendant embezzled was made in the form of capital increase or issuance of bonds prior to the sale of Nonindicted Co. 1 to the Defendant, and immediately withdrawn from Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 9 by means of lending one’s own related company to Nonindicted Co. 1. Even if the Defendant did not make the best payment, it cannot be said that Nonindicted Co. 1 owned the deposit of this case, since he temporarily borrowed 33 billion won from the bonds company immediately before the conclusion of the sales contract with the Defendant, and then deposited 33 billion won into the account of Nonindicted Co. 1, and then returned it again to the Defendant. Even if Nonindicted Co. 1 owned the deposit of this case, it cannot be said that Nonindicted Co. 3 opened an account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 before its withdrawal and deposited it in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, and made payment control, and the Defendant cannot be said to have withdrawn the deposit of this case from his own account in accordance with the above plan for embezzlement or acquisition of the actual management status of Nonindicted Co. 1.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant as to the violation of special law (Embezzlement) among the facts charged in the case of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or embezzlement.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact

(1) Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged:

(A) The developments leading up to Nonindicted 3’s operation of Nonindicted 1 Stock Company

1) Nonindicted Co. 1 is a KOSDAQ-listed corporation established on October 11, 1996 with the main purpose of developing, manufacturing, and selling digital video brokerage system software. Nonindicted Co. 10 was the largest shareholder through Nonindicted Co. 11.

2) On September 17, 2008, Nonindicted Co. 12 acquired Nonindicted Co. 11 and Nonindicted Co. 10 from Nonindicted Co. 10 on September 10, 2008, and between Nonindicted Co. 10 and 10, “Nonindicted Co. 1 is managed by the management appointed by Nonindicted Co. 12, but the DVR business sector of Nonindicted Co. 1’s DVR guarantees the independent management of Nonindicted Co. 10, and sells it at KRW 13 billion in material division from Nonindicted Co. 1, and Nonindicted Co. 3 represented Nonindicted Co. 12 in the aforementioned process.

3) According to the above agreement, Nonindicted Co. 1 convened a general meeting of shareholders on November 3, 2008 and appointed directors and auditors. Nonindicted Co. 13, the representative director of the board of directors held on the same day, restructuring the organization of Nonindicted Co. 1 into a new business headquarters and DVR business headquarters.

4) Since then, on November 6, 2008, Nonindicted Co. 1 procured KRW 1.999 billion through capital increase with the third party allotment method; KRW 1.99 billion through the issuance of preemptive rights bonds on November 24, 2008; KRW 1.6.99 billion through the capital increase with the capital increase on February 25, 2009; and in the process, Nonindicted Co. 3 acquired and operated Nonindicted Co. 1 with Nonindicted Co. 1, and thereafter acquired KRW 30 million through the Nonindicted Co. 14, etc., and subsequently concluded a contract on March 26, 2009, with Nonindicted Co. 150,000 under the name of Nonindicted Co. 515, 2015.

(B) The current status of Nonindicted 3’s fund operation by Nonindicted 1 Stock Company

From November 4, 2008, immediately after Non-Indicted 13 became the representative director of Non-Indicted 1 Stock Company, Non-Indicted 3 lent the funds of Non-Indicted 1 Stock Company to Non-Indicted 8 Co. 9 and Non-Indicted 9 Co. 16 per annum, as indicated in the following table, and operated them again in the form of lending them to Non-Indicted 16 who is the bondholder. This was not publicly announced even though the matters to be publicly announced under the Securities and Exchange Act or the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, which was in force at the time.

[The current status of financial transactions between Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 8]

본문내 포함된 표 거래일 대 여(원) 회 수(원) 2008. 11. 4. 4,500,000,000 ？ 2009. 2. 25. ？ 100,000,000 2009. 3. 6. 3,000,000,000 ？ 2009. 3. 16. 3,500,000,000 ？ 2009. 3. 26. 300,000,000 ？ 2009. 3. 27. 1,900,000,000 ？ 2009. 3. 31. ？ 5,200,000,000 2009. 4. 1. 3,500,000,000 ？ 2009. 4. 16. 600,000,000 ？ 2009. 4. 22. 755,000,000 ？ 2009. 5. 7. 300,000,000 ？ 2009. 5. 12. 500,000,000 ？ 2009. 5. 13. 300,000,000 ？ 2009. 5. 15. 600,000,000 ？ 2009. 5. 15. 40,000,000 ？ 합 계 19,795,000,000 5,300,000,000 대여액-회수액 14,495,000,000

[The current status of financial transactions between Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 9]

본문내 포함된 표 거래일 대 여(원) 회 수(원) 2008. 12. 1. 2,200,000,000 ？ 2008. 12. 29. ？ 504,219,178 2009. 1. 22. ？ 45,000,000 2009. 2. 27. 2,600,000,000 ？ 2009. 3. 31. ？ 2,600,000,000 2009. 4. 1. 1,500,000,000 ？ 2009. 4. 8. 2,800,000,000 ？ 2009. 4. 22. 45,000,000 ？ 2009. 4. 24. 300,000,000 ？ 2009. 4. 27. 200,000,000 ？ 2009. 4. 27. 300,000,000 ？ 2009. 5. 8. 70,000,000 ？ 합 계 10,015,000,000 3,149,219,178 대여액-회수액 6,865,780,822

(C) Defendant’s acquisition process of Nonindicted Co. 1

1) On March 2009, Nonindicted Co. 3 decided to re-sale Nonindicted Co. 1 Company and agreed to divide Nonindicted Co. 10 into the category of DVR business in material form. As such, Nonindicted Co. 3 sent a written request for sale to Nonindicted Co. 1 Company on the condition that “The DVR business sector of Nonindicted Co. 1 Company is expected to be physically divided, and thus, it will provide a similar business.”

2) On May 2009, the Defendant heard the above facts through Nonindicted 17’s regular business of Samil Accounting Corporation, which had been aware of, and had been in charge of the sales of, Nonindicted 18 on the part of Nonindicted 3, who was in charge of Nonindicted 1 Company, to acquire and sell Nonindicted 1 Company, and had been in charge of the sales of Nonindicted 3 Company, and had directly talked with, Nonindicted 3 on May 2009, and had the negotiations on the acquisition of Nonindicted 3 Company 1 Company, and had Nonindicted 3 “The Nonindicted 2 Company, who was in charge of Nonindicted 19 Company or 30% of its shares, may be provided as the price for the acquisition of Nonindicted 1 Company.”

3) On May 13, 2009, the Defendant borrowed KRW 33 billion from Nonindicted Co. 20 to the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 15 on the condition that the right of pledge was established to prevent the Defendant from withdrawing the loan from withdrawing the loan from Nonindicted Co. 3’s request, which was provisionally decided to sell Nonindicted Co. 1 to KRW 42 billion, and deposited it into the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 15, and Nonindicted Co. 20 set up a pledge on the account of Nonindicted Co.

4) The Defendant finally agreed on May 18, 200 to the effect that “the Defendant shall acquire Nonindicted Co. 1, and the Defendant shall transfer 30 billion won of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2, which the Defendant held with Nonindicted Co. 1, and on May 19, 2009, to Nonindicted Co. 3, 50 billion won (except for the DV development and manufacture sale business, which are the main business of Nonindicted Co. 1, 2009)” between Nonindicted Co. 1, 3 and 15, in the name of Nonindicted Co. 21, which the Defendant actually operated, “the Nonindicted Co. 1, 300 billion won of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, 500,000 won of the above 1,000 won of the funds borrowed from Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 1, 500,000 won of the above 33.0 billion won of the funds borrowed from Nonindicted Co. 1, 2009.

5) After the Defendant’s request, on May 21, 2009, the Defendant carried out the acquisition of assets by lawful procedures immediately after an executive officer designated by the Defendant was normally appointed on May 29, 2009, which is the scheduled date of the temporary general meeting of shareholders of Nonindicted Co. 1. The Defendant introduced to Nonindicted Co. 3 the largest shareholder and the representative director of the corporation scheduled to carry out the acquisition of assets until May 22, 2009, and let them sell the shares legitimately. ② The content that the acquisition of assets is scheduled to carry out the acquisition of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 as security before the acquisition of the shares of the corporation was carried out, ③ written confirmation confirming that the shares of Nonindicted Co. 3 should be paid to Nonindicted Co. 20 and the proceeds of sale of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 3, 2009, which would have the largest shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 21, 2009, which would have the value of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 3,5, 2009.

6) On May 26, 2009, the Defendant and Nonindicted 22, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 2, the Nonindicted Co. 3, the Defendant and Nonindicted 22, made and delivered to Nonindicted Co. 3 an agreement stating, “The Nonindicted Co. 5 transferred 30% of the equity interest of Nonindicted Co. 2, which Nonindicted Co. 5 owned by Nonindicted Co. 1, to Nonindicted Co. 5, and at the same time, promised to immediately repay the principal and interest of KRW 33 billion that Nonindicted Co. 21 borrowed from Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 20. Of the amount received from Nonindicted Co. 1, the largest shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 2, the Defendant and Nonindicted Co. 30% of the equity interest of Nonindicted Co. 5, which

7) On the other hand, on May 25, 2009, Nonindicted 3, upon mutual agreement with the Defendant, requested the Samil Accounting Corporation to assess the corporate value of Nonindicted Co. 2’s stocks, and received an evaluation statement from the Samil Accounting Corporation, which assessed the value of Nonindicted Co. 2’s stock per share from KRW 120,745 to KRW 147,341, from May 28, 2009 (Provided, That the Samil Accounting Corporation at the time, issued only an evaluation statement, on the ground that Nonindicted Co. 2 did not meet the demand for “to supplement the investment commitment and documentary evidence regarding a financing plan of approximately KRW 2 billion, which is a minimum amount of funds necessary for re-operation,” which is not a DDATRT file for public disclosure).

8) Accordingly, on May 29, 2009, Nonindicted 3 was contacted with Defendant 4, Nonindicted 22, 5, Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 23 of Samil Accounting Firm, Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 1 Co. 23 on the following day, who was waiting for the result of the general meeting of shareholders of the National Bank of Korea to be the ○○○○○○○○ branch of Nonindicted Co. 1, the Defendant was appointed by 33 billion won on the part of Nonindicted Co. 1’s 30% of the shares in Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 1, and deposited 33 billion won in the name of Nonindicted Co. 21, who was transferred to the account under the name of Nonindicted Co. 21, and repaid the said 33 billion won of the loan to Nonindicted Co. 20, which was established in the account under the name of Nonindicted Co. 205, and thus withdrawn the amount of KRW 33 billion deposited in the said account.

9) Since then, the Defendant received a letter of resignation from Nonindicted 3’s directors, including Nonindicted 13, who are the representative director of Nonindicted 1 Stock Company, and appointed Nonindicted 6, one of whom was himself as the representative director of Nonindicted 1 Stock Company, as the representative director of Nonindicted 1 Stock Company, and completed the registration for change of the officer of Nonindicted 1 Stock Company.

(D) The process of opening and depositing the account of this case

On the other hand, the deposit account of this case was opened in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 at the ○○○○ branch of the National Bank on May 27, 2009. The payment control measure was taken against KRW 30 billion immediately after the opening of the account and until the 28th day following the following day, the bank account of this case deposited KRW 33 billion in the name of Nonindicted Co. 8, etc., and transferred it to the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 5, etc. on May 29, 2009, as shown in the following table, after cancelling the payment control measure on May 29, 2008.

1. Non-Indicted 8 Co., Ltd. 29,537,713, 174 non-Indicted 9 Co., Ltd. 38, May 28, 2009; 450,000,000 non-Indicted 8 Co., Ltd. 450,53,500,000 for non-Indicted 8 Co. 450,000 " 53,500,000,000 for non-Indicted 650,000,000,000 for non-Indicted 650,000,000 for non-Indicted 73,000,000,000,0000 for non-Indicted 1 Co. 73, 73,500,000,000,000 for non-Indicted 248,502,286,8258, etc.

(E) The failure and developments leading up to the acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 2’s shares by Nonindicted Co. 1

1) At first, Nonindicted Co. 2 was a company in which Nonindicted Co. 4 owned 100% of its shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 5, the wife, Nonindicted 22, etc., and the operation was suspended on November 2, 2008 due to the shortage of operating funds. On August 2, 2008, the Defendant was able to listen to the fact that Nonindicted Co. 4 attempted to sell part of its shares in order to raise operating funds through Nonindicted Co. 17 and intended to purchase part of its shares. However, there was no specific agreement with Nonindicted Co. 4 on the purchase of shares.

2) Nevertheless, the Defendant, from the end of March 2009, concluded negotiations for acquiring Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 1, and completed the negotiations, as if he owns 30% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2. Meanwhile, the Defendant, at that time, made false statements to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 22 of Nonindicted Co. 2, who was in need of urgent funds for the resumption of operation, would pay 33 billion won of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2, even if he purchased 30% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2, the Defendant had no intent to pay 33 billion won of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 through the acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 1, while Nonindicted Co. 22 believed to do so, on May 26, 2009, prepared and issued a written agreement as described in the same paragraph (c) (6).

3) After that, on May 29, 2009, the Defendant deposited KRW 33 billion in the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1’s account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2 under the name of Nonindicted Co. 5 with Nonindicted Co. 4, 22, and 5 as well as Nonindicted Co. 1’s ○○○○ branch of the National Bank, as described in paragraph (8) of the above subparagraph (c) of the same Article, and immediately transferred the money to the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 21, and repaid KRW 33 billion in the above loan to Nonindicted Co. 20, 33 billion in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3, 22, and 4 together with Nonindicted Co. 3’s 18’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’, Nonindicted Co. 1, 500 million in the name of Nonindicted Co. 21, and paid KRW 3500 billion in the balance money.

4) The Defendant told Nonindicted 4 that he would pay only KRW 6 billion, not KRW 33 billion, to Nonindicted 4 as the price for the sale and purchase of the above shares. Nonindicted 4, who was anticipated to receive the full amount of KRW 33 billion from the Defendant, strongly posted his order, and Nonindicted 2’s shares did not belong to Nonindicted Company 1.

(2) Determination

(A) Whether Nonindicted Co. 1 owned the instant deposit

As seen above, Nonindicted 3 remitted the funds of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the form of lending them to Nonindicted Co. 8 or Nonindicted Co. 9, one of its own related companies without public announcement pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, but prior to entering into the instant contract with the Defendant and taking measures for payment control by opening a bank account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 and withdrawing the deposits of this case, and deposits in the form of withdrawing the funds lent to the said two companies at once.

However, among the instant deposits, it is obvious that Nonindicted Co. 1 received a loan from Nonindicted Co. 24 banks, and thus, it cannot be denied the ownership of Nonindicted Co. 1.

As to the remainder of KRW 30 billion, the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by Nonindicted Co. 1, i.e., Nonindicted Co. 1, 8 and Nonindicted Co. 9, which were offered security corresponding to the loan source. If Nonindicted Co. 3 embezzled it, it seems that there is no reason to keep the said basis. ② Nonindicted Co. 1, 200 billion won and KRW 2.5 billion were transferred to Nonindicted Co. 3 through the capital increase, and immediately withdrawn it through the capital increase, it appears that Nonindicted Co. 3 would not have been able to keep the funds in the form of a specified money trust without returning to Nonindicted Co. 3’s large amount of KRW 8.5 billion, and ③ Nonindicted Co. 1, 2000, it appears that it would have been difficult for Nonindicted Co. 3 to use the funds in the form of a specified money trust, and that it would have been difficult for Nonindicted Co. 3 to take measures to temporarily withdraw the funds in the form of a specific money trust.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant, and this part of the defendant's assertion

(B) Whether the Defendant was a custodian of the instant deposit

In embezzlement, the term "storage of property" means the state of actual or legal control over the property, and the custody thereof must be based on the consignment relationship. However, it does not necessarily require that it is established by a contract such as loan of use, lease, delegation, etc., and may also be established by administrative management, custom, cooking, and trust rule (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3840, Sept. 23, 2003; 2005Do7610, Jan. 12, 2006, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, although Non-Indicted 3 took measures to control the payment of KRW 30 billion among the money deposited in the account of Non-Indicted 1 Co., Ltd., the series of action led from Non-Indicted 1 Co. 1 to the receipt of the deposit of this case. At the time of withdrawal of the deposit of this case, Non-Indicted 13 was in a state of non-indicted 13’s representative director at the time of withdrawal of the deposit of this case, it appears that Non-Indicted 3 was merely a measure taken to secure the payment of the deposit of this case. After the withdrawal of the deposit of this case by Non-Indicted 3, the defendant was selected as the representative director of Non-Indicted 1 Co. 6 on the same day and the management right of Non-Indicted 1 Co. 3 was secured, the representative director of the board of directors under the Commercial Act and the articles of incorporation of Non-Indicted 1 Co. 3 Co. , Ltd., Ltd., which could not be seen to have been in the position of the non-Indicted 3 Co. 1’s.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant, and this part of the defendant's assertion

(C) The defendant's embezzlement and the defendant's intent of unlawful acquisition

As seen above, the Defendant did not own 30% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2, and even knowing that Nonindicted Co. 2 would not transfer them to Nonindicted Co. 1 without compensation, and, in order to take over Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 22, and Nonindicted Co. 1 paid the instant deposit owned by Nonindicted Co. 1 in return for taking over 30% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2, and immediately used them in repayment of loans for acquiring the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1. Thus, it is recognized that the Defendant embezzled the instant deposit, and that there was an intention of unlawful acquisition by the Defendant.

Meanwhile, despite the Defendant’s assertion, even if Nonindicted Co. 3 only delivered an appraisal opinion on the corporate value of Nonindicted Co. 2, which became a paper for public disclosure to Nonindicted Co. 1, Non-Indicted. 3, it is difficult to deem that Non-Indicted. 3 had sold the value of Non-Indicted. 2’s stocks to Non-Indicted. 30% of the shares of Non-Indicted. 2, or caused Non-Indicted. 3 to make a false appraisal of the value of Non-Indicted. 3. As seen earlier, it is difficult to deem that Non-Indicted. 3 did not have ordered Non-Indicted. 18 to conclude a contract on acquisition of shares and management right in a normal manner between the Defendant who acquired Non-Indicted. 1 and Non-Indicted. 2, and the Defendant confirmed that Non-Indicted. 18 had prepared such acquisition agreement and an understanding angle, and did not have any obligation to issue Non-Indicted. 3,000,000 won of shares to Non-Indicted. 3,000,00 won of shares sales contract.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant, and this part of the defendant's assertion

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing

The crime of this case is deemed to have transferred the shares corresponding to the acquisition price by deceiving Nonindicted Co. 1, the largest shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 1 to acquire Nonindicted Co. 1, who is a corporation listed on the KOSDAQ without his own capital, to Nonindicted Co. 1, thereby inducing Nonindicted Co. 1 to pay the funds of Nonindicted Co. 1 with the acquisition price of the shares. In order to conceal the funds of Nonindicted Co. 1, the crime of this case presented false data at the time of the audit and made false public announcements based on the results of the audit in order to conceal them, thereby causing harming and confusion in the trust in the capital market. In the end, the crime of this case has been closed, and the total amount of small shareholders who were listed in Nonindicted Co. 1, 33 billion won, and the amount of the embezzlement amount reaches 33 billion won, so it is deemed inevitable to punish the Defendant.

However, the profits that the defendant acquired through the crime of embezzlement of this case were acquired by Nonindicted Co. 3 and the management rights of Nonindicted Co. 1. The profits that the defendant acquired by the abolition of the listing of Nonindicted Co. 1 appears to have not been much, among the 33 billion won of the above embezzlement amount, the amount equivalent to 20 billion won out of the above embezzlement amount was prepared for the physical division of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 1. As seen earlier, in the first instance, a large number of the small shareholders of Nonindicted Co. 1 wished to take the preference against the defendant, and the defendant also appears to have considerable value to the Nonindicted Co. 1 for the recovery of damage to Nonindicted Co. 1 and small shareholders, and the defendant is located in Indonesia, which appears to have acquired by the abolition of the listing of Nonindicted Co. 1, the amount of profits that the defendant acquired by the defendant seems to have been in excess of 52.8% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, 199>

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant is justified, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence against the defendant recognized by this court is as follows, except for the addition of the "statements in each trial court of the first instance by the witness Nonindicted 3, 7, and 23" to the "a summary of evidence" column of the judgment of the court below, since it is the same as the statement in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, it is cited as it is in accordance

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act [the point of embezzlement, the choice of limited imprisonment, however, the maximum of statutory punishment is 15 years of imprisonment with prison labor as prescribed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010)], Article 20(4)1 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Interference with External Audit, and Selection of Imprisonment with prison labor)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishments of each crime as stated in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which are heavier than the punishment)

Judges Lee Sung-ho (Presiding Judge)