The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 25,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

【Judgment on Grounds for Appeal】

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part against which I filed a complaint on November 2005 (1) is the true shareholder of the Defendant and K (the wife of the Defendant) as the true shareholder of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

AD is an unentitled person who forged documents and received shares of the Defendant and K. Since the F&D is an unentitled person, the F&D’s acquisition of shares from F and G (F’s management), H, I, J or (which did not obtain the approval of the board of directors), Q&, etc. that received shares from J cannot become a shareholder or director of E.

Therefore, there is a defect in the special shareholders' meeting held by the I by convening the above H, which is an unentitled person, or the board of directors held by all the directors appointed at the special shareholders' meeting, and the registration of change of the officer made in accordance with the resolution of the above special shareholders' meeting or the board of directors is false. Therefore, the contents of the complaint

In addition, the Defendant reported that Q Q’s delivery of a promissory note of KRW 1 billion to AE (AE’s fraud) and believed that this money is a consideration for the transfer to the representative director’s office, and that this portion of the complaint was reached. Therefore, there is no intention to commit a false accusation.

(2) As seen above, the complaint filed by Q around November 2005 was defective in the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors convened by I, and thus, this part of the complaint in question is true.

In addition, the defendant was aware that Q, who was a representative director at the time of the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch case 2004Gahap4758 (E), submitted a written confirmation to accept a claim (733 pages of the trial record). This part of the judgment is believed to constitute a breach of trust in relation to E, and therefore, there is no intention to commit a false accusation.

(3) The Defendant filed a complaint with H around October 2006 only filed a complaint with the purport that the amount of KRW 1.6 billion transferred to E was withdrawn immediately after the deposit of KRW 1.6 billion and it was difficult to identify the whereabouts of the Defendant.