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

(b) Embezzlement;

(c) Fraud;

(d) Forgery of private documents;

(e) Events of a falsified investigation document;

1. (a)(c)(d)(a);

2.(a)(c)(d)(e)(B);

Manam-do (Public Prosecution) and Preamble (Public Trial)

Law Firm C (For the defendant)

Attorney D

Law Firm E (Defendant 1)

[Defendant-Appellee]

January 26, 2017

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years, and imprisonment for one year and six months, respectively.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years for Defendant A, and for two years for Defendant B from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant A provides community service for 120 hours and 80 hours to Defendant B. Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the following facts charged shall be acquitted.

Criminal facts

1. Defendant A, who jointly commits a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) is the representative of H (hereinafter referred to as “H”) as of the present person who was the representative director of G (hereinafter referred to as “G”) from January 24, 2013 to March 18, 2014, and Defendant B is the person who was working as a financial director from April 2012 to March 18, 2014 and was in charge of G’s representative director from March 18, 2014, and the victim I acquired G and transferred the representative director to Defendant A while taking over the representative director from January 24, 2013 to January 24, 2013, and was appropriated as his tuition fees, etc.

On March 2013, the Defendants received two cases of non-dividendd pension insurance policy from the victim about which the victim I joined the Dong Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Dong Life Insurance Co., Ltd."), and conspired to use G operational funds and Defendant A's personal funds, because the above insurance termination refund was terminated by the victim's personal subscription.

From March 12, 2013, the Defendants received insurance termination money of KRW 518,141,612 from two above pension insurance contracts to the bank account (J) of the victim who was kept and managed by Defendant B from the East Life, and kept for the victim. On March 13, 2013, the Defendants transferred KRW 52 million to the National Bank account (K) in the name of Defendant A in the name of Yongsan-gu Seoul National Bank (K), and transferred KRW 230 million out of the same day to the above national bank account in the name of the victim. The Defendants transferred KRW 200,000 to the above national bank account in the name of the Defendant, the company fund management account, KRW 50,000,000 to KRW 20,000,000,000 from March 27, 2013 to KRW 300,000,000,000 of the remaining funds of KRW 520,000,00.

2. Joint crime of embezzlement;

The Defendants conspired to arbitrarily withdraw and use the funds while managing the bank account in the name of the victim (J) while receiving the funds of the victim and keeping them for the victim.

A. Defendant A instructed Defendant B to withdraw KRW 128,728,00 from the said account as an apartment contract deposit, and Defendant B withdrawn KRW 128,728,00 from the Han River branch of the National Bank around September 14, 201, and deliver it to Defendant A. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the victim’s funds.

B. Defendant A instructed Defendant B to withdraw KRW 10 million from the above account in the name of operating expenses of Plaintiff M1 (hereinafter referred to as “M”), and Defendant B released KRW 10 million from the Han River branch of the National Bank around July 19, 2012 in cash and delivered KRW 10 million to Defendant A.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the victim's funds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Partial statement of a witness I;

1. Second prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant A (including the defendant B and I's statement part), part of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant A

1. The third police suspect interrogation protocol (including the defendant B and I's statement part), and the fourth police suspect interrogation protocol (part of the police officer's interrogation protocol) of the defendant B;

1. Statement of the N in the police station;

1. Each investigation report (including the sequence 15, 26, 35, 43, 56, 82 of the evidence list, and each accompanying document); 1. Record dated April 3, 2014;

1. Each claim and receipt, the details of transactions in the G corporation passbook, general payment statement, each application for termination, new application form, each transfer sheet, each copy of the register, each copy of the register, and written confirmation of the rights of actual owners; and

1. The assertion and determination of the Defendants and their defense counsel regarding each account transaction

1. As to paragraph 1 of the judgment

A. Summary of the argument

1) As the representative director of G, the victim was responsible for civil and criminal liability for delayed payment of wages, etc., and the defendant B (fund management director) who was managing his/her account in his/her national bank account was instructed to use the insurance termination refund deposited into the national bank account in the name of the victim for the purpose of paying wages, retirement allowances, and tuition fees. Accordingly, the defendant B did not use the pertinent money voluntarily contrary to the purpose of entrustment by the victim.

2) Defendant A was unaware of the fact that the above money was used by Defendant B, and there was no conspiracy with Defendant B. In addition, the reason why part of the money was paid to Defendant A was to repay the debt to Defendant A according to the victim’s consent and instruction.

B. Relevant legal principles

1) The money received by a person delegated with administrative affairs involving the receipt and receipt of money from a third party for the delegating person is similar to the money received by the delegating person for the delegating person by such act. Barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the delegated person belongs to the delegating person’s possession at the same time, and the delegated person has the relationship of keeping the money for the delegating person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1923, Nov. 24, 1995; 95Do106, Jun. 14, 1996). Therefore, the delegated person entrusted with administrative affairs involving the receipt and receipt of money received from a third party for the delegating person without using it in accordance with the purport of the delegation, and without using it for the delegated person’s own or disposal, as if the delegated person were to own it, and making up for offsetting the Defendant’s claims against the delegating person with intent to offset, and thus constitutes embezzlement as it goes against the original delegated purport (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do310101, Sept.

2) In relation to accomplices who are co-processed with two or more persons in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but only constitutes a combination of intent to realize the crime by combining two or more persons to commit a crime. Even if there was no process of conspiracy, if a combination of intent is formed in order or impliedly, among several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, even if there was a person who did not participate in the conduct, he/she is held liable as a co-principal for the other's act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3532, Sept. 24, 2004).

C. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant B arbitrarily used the instant money in violation of the intent delegated by the victim and Defendant A also conspired with Defendant B. This is based on the following circumstances.

1) Around June 29, 2009, the victim was the introduction of Defendant A, who was an insurance solicitor, at the time of the time, subscribed to two cases of the same part-time pension insurance policy (hereinafter referred to as “same part-time pension insurance policy”), and paid monthly insurance premium of KRW 90 million with personal funds for the above pension insurance. The victim was granted loans of KRW 1.86 billion with the above pension insurance terms and conditions around November 18, 201, and around January 24, 2012, the economic situation of the victim was significantly aggravated due to the aggravation of G’s financial status.

2) From the investigative agency to March 2013, 2013, the victim consistently stated that the Defendant A sought the procedure for cancelling the pension insurance for the same life, etc. from the investigative agency to the victim’s personal living expenses, etc., and the Defendant A also recognized the fact that the victim received an inquiry from the victim of the procedure for cancelling the insurance for the same life. The Defendant B instructed the G employee to proceed with the procedure for cancelling the insurance for the same life, after hearing the fact that the victim attempted to avoid the insurance for the same life, and ordered the G employee to proceed with the above procedure. Accordingly, the Defendant appears to have been aware that the procedure for cancelling the insurance

3) The victim was unaware of the accurate size of the refund money for termination of the same life annuity policy. The victim knew of the fact that he/she embezzled the fact that he/she knew of the fact. The victim knew of the fact that he/she knew of the fact that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she was aware of the payment of the premium for termination of the same life insurance. In light of the fact that the victim sent the documents necessary for the victim’s identification through the victim’s P while inquiring of the cancellation procedure, the victim was using the victim’s cell phone, and the procedure for self-certification was progress through the victim’s cell phone used by the victim, and the text message leading the victim to the details of termination and the payment of the refund money for termination was sent to the victim’s cell phone, and the victim did not know of the amount of the above insurance premium for a certain period after the victim’s continuous payment of the insurance premium for life insurance for the same life, the victim did not know of the amount of the principal and the refund money.

4) On March 12, 2013, Defendant B confirmed that KRW 518,141,612 of the cancellation refund was deposited at the victim’s citizen bank account (J, hereinafter “instant account”) that he had managed, and deposited KRW 520 million in the Defendant’s citizen bank account around March 13, 2013 as indicated in the facts of the crime in the judgment, but deposited KRW 230,000,000 in the same day to G’s bank account and this case’s account, and transferred KRW 100,000 out of the remainder of the funds to N’s one bank account in the name of Defendant A via G’s bank account and this case’s account, and ordered N, a M’s employee, to transfer the funds to one bank account in the name of Defendant A. The process of transferring the funds does not seem to be normal, and Defendant B, as long as the statement and appearance of the police relationship was recognized to have not obtained the victim’s consent to the execution of funds.

5) Defendant B asserts that, through the aforementioned process, the victim spent the amount of KRW 30 million in total transferred to one bank account under the name of Defendant A, including G retirement pay, tuition fees, and meal expenses of SA. However, around January 24, 2013, the victim already resigned the representative director G management and worked as an instructor at G management, and from January 24, 2013, Defendant A was in charge of the representative director of G. Some of the above KRW 330 million were used as an instructor fee after Defendant A was in charge of G’s representative director or around February 4, 2013, and the victim cannot be found to have been aware that it was difficult for the victim to arbitrarily delegated his/her personal right to use the money for the purpose of the crime of embezzlement by taking account of the fact that it was difficult for the victim to arbitrarily obtain a certificate of right to use the money from SA’s representative director at the time of cancellation of his/her business, and that it was difficult for the victim to bear some part of the above charges for the Plaintiff’s personal right to use of the money.

6) Defendant A asserts to the effect that he was aware of the fact that the above KRW 52 billion was a refund for the cancellation of pension insurance for the victim, and that he was using the remaining money with the consent of the victim. However, as seen earlier, the victim sought the procedure of cancelling the pension insurance for the victim immediately before the victim, and the defendant A was actually in progress by delivering it to the defendant B. The defendant A knew that he was 52 billion won from the account of this case to his own national bank account, and the defendant B delivered the fact that the above KRW 52 million was the money of the victim. Nevertheless, the defendant A used the remaining amount that was not transferred to one bank account of the victim, 172 million won, and 72 million won for personal purpose, such as repayment, etc. Even if the defendant was aware that the victim had a claim against the victim at the time of this case with the victim, the defendant A was aware of the fact that he was able to pay the money to the victim in writing or orally by settling the relation with the victim with the victim.

2. As to paragraph 3 of the judgment

A. Summary of the argument

1) At the time, the victim took the responsibility against the Defendant A, directed the Defendant B, who was in charge of his national bank account, to discharge the obligation against the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendants do not embezzled even if they were to use the pertinent money in consultation with the victim.

2) The pertinent money was withdrawn from the national bank account in the name of A on the day, and was transferred to the national bank account in the name of the victim, and was deposited again into the M account. This money was merely used through the national bank account in the name of the victim, and was used as the operating expenses of the M office in which the relevant affairs were carried out in accordance with the direction of the victim. Thus, the Defendants did not embezzled the money of the victim

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendants can be sufficiently recognized that they used the above money against the intent delegated by the victim. This is based on the following circumstances:

1) On February 16, 2011, the victim opened the account of this case with the National Bank of Korea (J) and immediately entrusted the management of the account to the Defendants. The management of the deposit and withdrawal of the account of this case was practically conducted by Defendant B andM employees. The victim deposited approximately KRW 2.2 billion in the account of this case on March 7, 2011, and approximately KRW 600 million on September 1, 201, respectively. The above amount was KRW 770 million on May 31, 201, and KRW 60 million on August 1, 201, and KRW 450,000 on August 1, 201, as the income tax of the victim, and KRW 2.2 billion on September 1, 2011, as the deposit for the apartment house of this case. The victim voluntarily entrusted the management of the account of this case, such as tuition fees, etc., to the victim’s own account or its regular management of the funds.

2) The victim consistently states that, from the investigative agency to the court, there is no instruction or permission from the Defendants on the withdrawal of the pertinent fund. On the other hand, the Defendants: (a) deposited a large amount of money in the victim’s account; and (b) asserted that he/she dealt with a continuous and complicated monetary transaction between the victim and G, M, and the Defendant A; and (c) did not present books and other objective evidence as to the cause of the deposit and withdrawal.

3) On January 2010, the Defendants agreed to receive advisory expenses of KRW 5 million per month from the victim while entering into each delegation contract for consulting and advisory services, G management right underwriting with H and H operated by them, and the victim did not pay the contract. However, there is a fact that there is a contract with the above contents. However, the case of Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 Gohap 591686, 2015Gahap56158 (Counterclaim) where the authenticity of the above contract is not verified (the relevant civil lawsuit, Seoul Central District Court 2014 Gohap 591686, 2015Gahap56158). The Defendants determined to the same purport. The fact that the victim or H did not pay the amount as advisory expenses under the above contract, the delegation contract under the Civil Act may be concluded free of charge, and the Defendant A was unable to arbitrarily use the victim’s debt or debt without consent due to the victim’s voluntary consent to repayment of the above contract (the victim’s debt or debt without consent).

4) Defendant A provided the victim with personal continued funds, thereby causing damage on September 14, 201.

Since approximately KRW 270,000,000 won was the claim against the person, among them, he asserts that part of the claim was paid under the name of the apartment contract deposit. However, it is difficult to view that the specification of the transactions by Defendant A was either paid the whole amount to the victim or paid for the victim. In addition, the separate settlement was made on March 31, 201 with regard to the portion of the amount of additional collection paid by Defendant A for the victim. Considering the special relationship between Defendant A and the victim, even if Defendant A paid part of the amount for the victim, it would not be deemed that the settlement was not immediately demanded to the victim, and it would not be justified to arbitrarily use the amount for the payment of the victim’s assets even if there was a legitimate claim.

5) On July 19, 2012, Defendant A deposited KRW 20 million in the National Bank Account (U) with the victim’s account in this case. On the same day, KRW 20 million was deposited from the instant account to the victim’s account, and KRW 10 million was paid as tax adjustment fee to V accountant. The remainder of KRW 10 million was transferred to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (W) in the name of Defendant A and used for M office operating expenses. However, as seen above, it is difficult to view that Defendant A and the victim jointly owned shares in the relevant account and it is irrelevant to the victim. The Defendants did not immediately transfer the relevant money from the relevant account to M-related account, but rather transfer it to the instant account; Defendant M is a company operated by Defendant A and the victim used the pertinent office operating expenses, and it seems reasonable to view that the Defendants did not use the said funds to the above office operating expenses.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016); Articles 355(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of embezzlement of Paragraph (1) at the time of sale); Articles 355(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of embezzlement of Paragraph (2) at the time of sale)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 of the Criminal Code, Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) to the extent that the penalty prescribed in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Code (The following consideration shall be taken into account in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of each Criminal Code (The following consideration shall be made again for the reasons for sentencing)

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months to twenty years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Embezzlement and Breach of Trust 50 million won or more, and less than five billion won (Type 3)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Two to Five years of imprisonment (Basic Area)

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant A: Two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution;

(b) Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and two years of suspended execution; and

[Unjustifiable circumstances] The Defendants, as an instructor of a famous driving school, had access to a victim with considerable revenue and property and manage his property, and used part of the money to manage the victim’s assets entrusted by the victim based on the trust relationship formed between the victim and the victim. The Defendants, through the so-called “Fundlurging”, made the Defendants inserting money into the corporation, or made the appearance of the victim, such as receiving the provisional payment from the corporation, is not good in light of the details and methods of the crime. The amount of damage caused by the crime in this case is reasonable, and the Defendants did not agree with the victim.

[I] Of the damage amount of this case, the considerable part was used to repay the operating expenses and other obligations of G during the period in which the victim was the representative director. The Defendants performed various duties on behalf of the victim, and disbursed their own expenses in the process. The victims are also responsible for the occurrence of crimes or the expansion of damage, such as neglecting to confirm the financial status or legal relations of the victim, and neglecting their efforts to clarify them. Defendant B did not obtain personal benefits from the crime of this case, and it seems that the degree of participation was weak compared to Defendant A. The Defendants did not have any history of being punished for the crime exceeding the same kind of crime or the suspension of execution.

In addition, considering the motive, means and result of the instant crime, relationship with the victim, circumstances after the commission of the crime, age, character and conduct of the Defendants, environment, and family relationship, all of the sentencing conditions shown in the instant pleadings, such as the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., Defendant B shall be subject to the lower limit of the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines,

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendants were promoting the bypass listing by accepting X, a listed company X and merged with G, and as a result, the capital increase in G was required, the Defendants solicited to terminate the fund and specified money trust account that I personally opened by, and to use the fund.

(a) Forgery of private documents in a written application for termination of the fund;

On November 17, 201, Defendant A demanded cooperation from the office located in Yongsan-gu to the Z, the Y branch of the National Bank in the name of I to terminate the fund. On the same day, Defendant B sought at the Y branch of the National Bank in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and requested AB, an employee of the said bank, to prepare an application for the termination of the fund instead of an application for the termination of the fund, on the ground that he did not engage in writing in the act as if he/she had been delegated the above termination. AB, upon receiving an order to cooperate with the said Z, made the request to prepare an application for the termination of the fund instead of an application for the termination of the fund on the ground that he/she did not engage in writing in the act as if he/she had been delegated the above termination of the contract, and made AB, who has received an order to cooperate with the said Z, enter 'AC', 'AD', 'AE' in the account number column of each site, 'T', and 'T' in the name column.

(b) Exercising an application for termination of a letter of investigation documents;

Defendant B requested an employee AB who is aware of the above forgery at the Y point of the above national bank, to terminate three of the above forgerys, and delivered three of the above forged fund termination applications as if they were duly formed. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with each other to use three of the forged letter termination applications.

Defendant B, around November 17, 201, 201, followed at Y points in the National Bank in Jung-gu, Seoul, China, as if he was entrusted with the termination of a legitimate letter from the above, presented three copies of the forged fund termination application to the above AB along with the above resident registration certificate, divided the password known in advance, and made the above AB terminate three of the funds. On November 22, 2011, Defendant B transferred KRW 228,325,797 to the above national bank in the name of the victim’s national bank (J) where the Defendants manage KRW 228,325,797. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with the victim bank to acquire KRW 228,325,797 as the refund money for termination of the fund from the victim’s national bank.

D. Around November 25, 2011, Defendant B found it at Y points in the Korean bank located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and made the said AB enter “AF”, “sume in the face number column,” and “I” in the deposit note column, respectively, in the form for the application for the termination of a specified money trust, using the test color pen on the paper for the application for the termination of a specified money trust. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with the Defendants, for the purpose of exercising the rights and obligations, forged one copy of the application for the termination of a specified money trust in the name of I, which is a private document related to rights and obligations.

E. Defendant B requested employees AB who knew of the above forgery at the above point to terminate the specified money trust account, and delivered the forged money trust termination and application form as if it were duly formed. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with others to exercise the application for the termination of the specified money trust.

(f) Fraud;

Defendant B, around November 25, 2011, 201, 201, Y points in the National Bank AA located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, had the Y points entrusted by her to terminate a specified money trust, presented the application for the termination of the specified money trust with the above I’s resident registration certificate to the above AB, and entered the password already known, and had the above AB terminate the specified money trust account; and then, Defendant B transferred the money to the above one national bank account (I) managed by the Defendants, totaling KRW 270,864,917, which is the cancellation money owned by the victim’s national bank. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to acquire KRW 270,864,917 from the victim as a refund for the termination of a specified money trust.

2. Defendants and defense counsel’s assertion

The Defendants did not directly engage in, or did not know about, the principal to the termination of the instant fund and specified money trust, and instead, did not directly terminate and use the instant money trust by ordering Z, AB, etc. The instant money trust and specified money trust were managed by the consent and delegation of I. As such, the Defendants did not receive the relevant termination refund from the victim’s national bank by forging and using the application for termination.

3. Determination

A. The term “a document forgery” refers to the preparation of a document in the name of another person by a person who is not authorized to prepare a document. Thus, if there was an explicit or implied consent (Delegation) from the nominal owner in preparing a private document, this cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of aiding and abetting private documents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do183, Feb. 24, 1998; 84Do115, Mar. 27, 1984).

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, Defendant B visited Y branch of the National Bank, following the procedure for the termination of the instant fund and specified money trust, and Defendant A also appears to have participated in the procedure. This is based on the following circumstances.

1) Defendant B stated that the Fund and a specified money trust of this case were terminated by visiting Y points of the National Bank upon I’s request during the first interrogation of the prosecution. Defendant B reversed the statement that there was no difference in fact that the Fund and a specified money trust were visited at the above point from the time of the second interrogation of the prosecution. Defendant B made a statement to the effect that he directly visited AB to the above point to the effect that he entered the password, and that, if erroneous, AB would be punished. However, Defendant B made a false statement to the effect that he directly visited the above point of the prosecutor’s office after considering the circumstances leading up to the entrustment of the termination of the Fund at the time of the first interrogation of the suspect, the situation of visiting Y points at the time of the first interrogation of the suspect, and the situation of the termination refund after termination, and the relationship between the above Defendant and AB, the above Defendant appears to have no reason to make a false statement for the purpose of AB, rather than that Defendant B visited the above Defendant’s statement to the prosecutor’s office and made it directly to the above Defendant’s office.

2) At the time of the instant case, AB, working at the Y branch of the National Bank, made a statement at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that: (a) Defendant B visited and confirmed the password by entering the password; and (b) carried out the duties of cancelling a specified money trust; (c) around November 17, 2011, and around November 25, 201, the said Defendant was stated in this court that it was not accurate memory as to whether the said Defendant visited the Y branch. However, in this court, AB provided convenience at the National Bank Y branch of the National Bank Y branch of the National Bank Y branch of the instant case for the convenience of making transactions with VIP customers without their own visit; (d) however, if the amount is larger than that of the instant fund and specified money trust, visiting the bank as an agent and processing the instant case; and (e) the person who actually carried out the duties of visiting and withdrawing the said branch on behalf of the Plaintiff B and M.

3) At the time of the instant case, the Z, which was the head of the Y branch of the National Bank, has been consistently stated in the MM office located in Yongsan-si, around November 17, 201, from the prosecution, to the present court, at the meeting to raise funds related to the acquisition and listing of the company with Defendant A, etc., and Defendant A was also present at such meeting. The termination of the instant fund and specified money trust was made at the Y branch located under the direction of the Z on November 17, 2011 immediately after the said meeting, and around November 25, 2011. Each cancellation refund was used to fulfill the obligation to repay the bonds acquired as the same shareholder’s share and management right as G, and it appears that Defendant A, etc. was aware of the fact that the instant fund and specified money trust was created by the instant case.

4) The refund money for the cancellation of the instant fund and specified money trust was deposited into the account of I’s National Bank (J) that was entrusted by Defendant B, and Defendant B deposited the same Life Insurance Terms and Conditions separately entrusted by Defendant B into the said account, and the Defendants stated that they used the funds raised therefrom to repay G convertible bonds and pay global income taxes at that time according to the first order. Considering these circumstances, the Defendants are bound to have consulted and participated in the termination of the instant fund, specified money trust, and the operation of the said funds.

C. However, in full view of the following circumstances, the Defendants appears to have terminated the instant fund and specified money trust with I’s consent and delegation and received the cancellation refund from the National Bank.

1) Around 15:10 on November 18, 201, 201, I left the United States, and returned to the Republic of Korea on November 29, 201, and a text message on the termination of the fund sent from the National Bank to the mobile phone around November 17, 2011 is recognized as having not been transmitted due to ‘Refusal of the opening of the device' or ‘in-house broker'. However, since I delegated certain tasks to the Defendants due to ordinary lectures, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendants were unaware of the termination of the instant fund and specified money trust or did not delegate the said tasks to the said Defendants.

2) The Defendants asserted that, around November 1, 2011, at the M Office located in Yongsan, the Defendants participated in the G management right acquisition and financing plan meeting, and that, according to delegation relation at the meeting, the instant fund and specified money trust was carried out. In addition, I stated that, at the time, the accounting company V attended this meeting at this Court meeting to establish a financing plan to regard the list of accounts and establish a list of accounts with the Z, and that, at the same time, X’s preemptive right to new stocks was purchased in the name of V, and requested to request that it be purchased in the name of V, and that the Z was not accurately memoryed in this Court for a long time, but that in this regard, I asked for the performance of duties ‘in person or by telephone'.

3) At the time, AG and AH, who worked as an instructor of G’s private teaching institute, stated that they worked in this Court around November 17, 2011 [this Court served in the AI private teaching institute, and 12:0 on the same day, they carried out the fact-finding process at the same time, and that in P.M., they carried out teaching materials that were going to go out while staying in a private teaching institute for a considerable time.

However, at the time, AG and AH are working for their own essay lessons, it is difficult to see that they are memorying by accurately ascertaining whether they were working for a private teaching institute or not, and since the office of Yongsan M in child delivery, which had a meeting with an AI private teaching institute or a meeting, is not far far away, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that they have lockedd while working for the private teaching institute.

4) Even if the Fund did not directly attend the meeting on November 17, 2011, it is determined that I was delegated to the termination of the instant fund and specified money trust in light of the following circumstances.

around October 24, 2009, ○○ entered into a contract for appointment of an instructor with AJ (former G) and made efforts to acquire G’s management right by accepting G shares in the name of H around August 13, 2010 and taking office as a joint representative director around September 16, 2010. At the time of the G corporate register, the first convertible bonds were issued around October 9, 2008, and the first convertible bonds were scheduled to arrive on October 6, 201. Convertible Convertible C&K and C&I sent to G (representative receipt I) on October 7, 201, 201, demanding the repayment of convertible bonds from October 15, 201 and until October 7, 2011.

○ The Agreement on the Acquisition of Management Right by G was drafted on October 10, 201 between AL and H, which is a major shareholder of G, and the Agreement on the Acquisition of Management Right by G. According to the foregoing Agreement, AL transferred G shares 2,915,644 to H, and exempted G from the debt amounting to KRW 2.5 billion on June 16, 2010, and adjusted G’s short-term loans to be repaid in installments over three years, and one and H guaranteed the total amount of KRW 2.1 billion on the company’s convertible bonds. The foregoing Agreement was notarized on the same day.

○○ was unaware of the status of G’s obligations at the time of the acquisition of G in this court. The statement is made only before Defendant A only to take over KRW 1.45 billion. However, considering that a person who intends to take over a company normally confirms the relationship of the company’s claims and obligations, and considering the so-called “one instructor”’s life, it is difficult to easily understand that the contents of the agreement drawn up in his own name and authenticated, or the contents of the obligations described in the company’s corporate register that he intends to take over, are difficult to easily understand, taking full account of the following: (a) Convertible Bonds Co., Ltd., expressed that the sum of convertible bonds to be repaid on or around November 201, 201 are KRW 2 billion; and (b) G convertible bonds whose maturity comes due to the need to redeem KRW 2 billion of the company’s bonds; and (c) Defendant A’s statement to the effect that the amount of the convertible bonds is not known to the public prosecutor’s office that the amount of the convertible bonds is KRW 180 billion.

T states that the individual global income tax shall be paid in installments according to the schedule from KRW 1.5 billion to KRW 2 billion, and it appears that the business entity paying taxes by raising a considerable income and paying taxes has been aware of the fact that it is required to make interim prepayment of global income tax around November 201. In addition, around November 2011, I instructed Defendant B to receive the same life-long pension loan terms and conditions, and accordingly, on November 18, 201, deposited the above loan amounting to KRW 1.86 billion into the national bank account in the name of Defendant B managed by Defendant B, and therefore it seems clear that I ordered the Defendants to provide certain funds at least around November 201.

5) In fact, the instant fund and specified money trust termination refund amounting to KRW 499,190,714, and KRW 1,859,850,000, etc. were deposited in around November 29, 2011. On the same day, KRW 2 billion was deposited in the G Han Bank account (AM) and paid KRW 2 billion was paid to AK, a convertible bonds, around November 30, 201, and the remainder was paid as global income tax (824,856,860 won) of the victim around November 29, 2011.

6) After the termination of the instant fund, around January and February 2012, there was a fact that the Defendant visited the central branch of the NFF, a private bank that initially subscribed to the instant fund, and opened another fund. Generally, examining the details of the establishment and termination of the instant fund when subscribing to the fund. As such, I appears to have known of the fact that the Fund was terminated at that time, and even thereafter, I did not check and confirm the current status of its own fund, specified money trusts, and other property, including a specific money trust, until a considerable period of time expires, and it is difficult to readily understand that the Defendants filed an additional complaint with the Defendants on July 18, 2014 due to the fabrication of the instant private document.

D. Therefore, even in light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants forged the application for the termination of the instant letter and specified money trust without delegation or consent of the victim and acquired each termination refund from the national bank, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

4. Conclusion

Thus, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, each of the defendants is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is not publicly announced under the proviso of Article 58 (2) of

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

The presiding judge, judge and mining interference

Judge Choi Min-man

Judges Kim Gin-han

1) The indictment is written as H, but it is written as 'H', according to the evidence records 2144, 2678, 'M' according to the separate account transaction statement.

I seem to be the same.