Where one shareholder of an insurance company unjustly reduces the company's assets, the nature of such violation of the former Insurance Business Act (Misappropriation).

Although a company of a 1-person shareholder is not the same with a profit-making corporation which has a legal personality and a shareholder who is the subject of its profit-making, and in particular, with respect to an insurance company, there are certain legal regulations under the minimum capital, minimum and statutory law of the Minister of Finance and Economy, the right to examine the business and other property status of the insurance company, restrictions on dividends, etc. in order to protect the interests of policyholders, the insurance company, and so on. Therefore, the unfair decrease in the assets of the insurance company cannot be deemed the same as the decrease in its own property. Therefore, the above 1-person shareholder's unfair decrease in the company property constitutes a violation of the Insurance Business Act (Misappropriation).

Article 130(1) of the former Insurance Business Act

July 24, 1984, 83Do830 decided July 24, 198 (Gong737, 1504)

Defendant 1 and three others

Prosecutor and Defendants

Seoul Criminal District Court (73Gohap701)

The violation of the Commercial Act and the guilty part against Defendant 1 in the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one and half years.

As to Defendant 1, 65 days of detention days prior to the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the sentence above.

The amount of KRW 1,000,000 shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

All appeals filed by Defendant 2, 3, and 4 are dismissed.

Of the number of days of detention in the court prior to the pronouncement of judgment, 80 days for Defendant 2, 15 days for Defendant 4, and the sentence of the court below for the said Defendants shall be included in the punishment of the said Defendants. The appeal filed by the prosecutor on the wharf of the Defendant and the appeal filed by the court below on Defendant 1 as to the remainder of innocence except for the violation of

1. Grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor

(1) Defendant 1 and his defense counsel's first ground for appeal (the supplemental ground for appeal that was paid after the deadline for submitting the Reasons for Appeal shall be determined to the extent of supplement of the reasons for appeal submitted within the deadline) are as to the facts constituting the crime of this case at the time of original adjudication. After acquiring the insurance company of this case with Defendant 2's preference, the defendant delivered the money of this case as a political fund for the development of the company and the collection of house for the defendant. The defendant did not give a bribe in relation to the defendant 2's duties, and the facts constituting the crime of this case at the time of original adjudication, the defendant was hospitalized at hospital and all of the company's affairs were decided by Non-Party 1, who had no executive director at the time, to the extent that the money of this case was provided to Defendant 3, the company of this case, which had no relation with the duty of a public official for the conclusion of the insurance contract, and thus, the court below's decision that the defendant did not have a relation to the defendant's new business's ability to pay damages to the company of this case.

(2) Defendant 2 and his defense counsel's appeal No. 1 are without any relation to the defendant's duties, and only the relation that the defendant has been in charge of insurance business for a long time in the financial department to introduce and arrange the insurance company's sales and purchase of the insurance company's insurance company's insurance business, the defendant was granted the above money to pay the money as political funds for the trust of the above insurance company and the defendant's own withdrawal. However, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as the crime of bribery and punished the defendant as the crime of bribery, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the duties of bribery under the Criminal Act or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the duties of bribery under the Criminal Act, and considering the circumstances that the defendant has served in the public office for the past 20 years, the judgment of the court below that sentenced the defendant to the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for 5 years is unreasonable.

(3) Although the first ground for appeal by Defendant 3 did not know that the amount of this case was a bribe and delivered to Nonindicted 2 in the name of his superior, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment by punishing the Defendant as a crime of delivery of cerebral Bribery. The second ground for appeal is that the judgment of the court below which sentenced the Defendant to a stay of execution for a period of two years against the Defendant, considering the circumstances where the Defendant had been on the salary for a long time as a public official, etc., the decision of the court below which sentenced the Defendant to a stay of execution for a period of two years against the Defendant is unreasonable.

(4) Defendant 4 and Defendant 1, who was the president of the insurance company of this case, received the instant money from Defendant 1, who was appointed as the president of the insurance company of this case, to request the change of management difficulties at the time, and received compensation for the cancellation of his work at the time of the commission. Despite the fact that the Defendant did not receive the instant money under the pretext of removal of unfair directors within the company by solicitation of the relationship with investigation agency, etc., such as the time of original adjudication, the court below recognized the Defendant as the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the fact, and considering that the Defendant’s crime of this case was not committed by fraud, the second reason for appeal is that the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendant of this case is unreasonable.

(5) The first ground for appeal against Defendant 1 by the prosecutor as to the acquittal portion against the defendant at the time of original adjudication, and the facts charged against the defendant are sufficient to prove, but the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts by misunderstanding the selection of evidence and misunderstanding of facts, and the second ground for appeal against the defendant and the second ground for appeal against the defendant 3 is unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

(1) First of all, the Defendants’ ground for appeal that there was a mistake of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below is examined in detail in light of the records, as to the first ground for appeal by the Defendants, and various methods of evidence adopted by the court below through legitimate evidence examination, and each part of the Defendants’ statement in the trial court at the time of original trial, each of the facts charged in this case against the Defendants can be sufficiently recognized, and otherwise, it cannot be found that there was a mistake of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out in

(2) As to the above grounds of appeal that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of breach of trust, the judgment of the court below by Defendant 1 cannot be seen as having been identical to the defendant's own property reduction in light of the above legal principles as to the above grounds of appeal that the defendant, even though he is a substantial one shareholder of the (trade name omitted) life insurance company of this case, the profit-making corporation which has legal personality as the subject of legal rights and obligations and the shareholder as the subject of profit-making can not be viewed as the same as the shareholder to whom the profit-making corporation belongs, and in particular, with respect to the insurance company, there are certain legal regulations under the minimum and legal principles as to the capital, the right to inspect the business of the Minister of Finance and Economy, the right to inspect the property status of the insurance company and the limitation on the distribution of dividends, etc. to protect the interests of the policyholders, the insured and other interested persons, and therefore, the court below's decision

(3) If the remaining Defendants except Defendant 1 and the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing as to the above grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing against Defendant 3 are comprehensively considered, considering the above circumstances, etc., the sentencing on the Defendants and the prosecutor, even though considering the above circumstances in which the Defendants and the prosecutor are particularly on internal duty, cannot be deemed as inappropriate, too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor cannot be accepted.

(4) In light of the records, the following prosecutor's reasons for appeal No. 1 (the reasons for appeal against the acquittal portion of the court below) with respect to the prosecutor's first (the reasons for appeal against the defendant's acquittal portion), and the prosecutor's appeal with respect to the remaining facts charged except for the violation of the Commercial Act (payment penalty) portion among the part which the court below acquitted the defendant, the court below rejected the evidence as consistent with the court below's reasoning and decided not guilty on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged, and in light of the selection of evidence and the process of its determination, it cannot be found that there is any error as pointed out in

However, the court below found 10,00 won and 50,000 won and 10,000 won and 50,000 won and 10,000 won and 50,00 won and 10,000 won and 50,000 won and 10,000 won and 10,000 won and 50,00 won and 10,000 won and 50,00 won and 10,000 won and 10,000 won and 50,00 won and 10,000 won and 10,000 won and 5,00 won and 10,00 won and 60,00 won and 10,00 won and 10,00 won and 60,00 won and 10,00 won and 60,00 won and 10,00 won and 6,00 won and 10,00 won and 6,00.

However, it is reasonable to view that, as mentioned above, if shares were to be paid to each bank and issued a certificate of custody immediately, then the above shares were returned to the creditors who leased the above shares price, then (mutual omitted) as if they were loans to the defendant company (non-indicted 3 corporation and 4 corporation), it cannot be exempted from liability for the crime of false payment under the Commercial Act in light of the date such shares were immediately withdrawn to the bank under the name of the company, the date when the ownership transfer registration was made, the date when the above shares were deposited to the bank, and the fact that the above shares were not transferred to the above 00 won, the total amount of 00 won and 400 won as stated in the appraisal statement of the above 600 won and the above 00 won as 00 won and the above 000 won and 400 won and the above 00 won and 000 won and 000 won and 100 won and 100 won and 300 won and 00 won and more of the above shares and 1000 won and more of the above shares.

Therefore, the court below's finding the defendant not guilty on the part of the violation of the Commercial Act is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the judgment, or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the crime of aiding and abetting payment under the Commercial Act. The prosecutor's appeal pointing this out has merit, and the court below's finding the defendant guilty part of the violation of the Commercial Act is not exempt from reversal. Since the guilty part of the court below is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the violation part of the Commercial Act, the judgment of the court below's conviction part

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by Defendant 2, 3, and 4 and the appeal by the prosecutor against Defendant 3 and by the court below against Defendant 1, except for the part of violation of the Commercial Act, are without merit. Accordingly, all of these appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 57 of the Criminal Act provides that 80 days of confinement before sentencing and 15 days of punishment against Defendant 4 shall be included in the sentence of the court below against Defendant 1, and all of the charges against Defendant 1 and the charges against Defendant 1 shall be reversed and decided again pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

On April 26, 1971, the defendant acquired a life insurance company (trade name omitted) and received an order of compulsory administration from the Minister of Finance and Economy on April 26, 1973, and operated as the representative director until he received the order of dissolution on June 12 of the same year;

1. On April 14, 1971, under the condition that a life insurance company, which was recognized as an insolvent company at the time, was ordered to increase the capital of KRW 2.5 million from the Minister of Finance and Economy and was assigned to the representative director, and such investment was paid, despite the fact that it was paid to the representative director, a copy of the certificate of deposit of the share capital for the face value shall be withdrawn from the next day of the receipt of the certificate of deposit of the share capital for the face value. On April 16 of the same year, a copy of the certificate of deposit of the share capital for the same method shall be issued to the above branch. On May 16 of the same year, a copy of the certificate of deposit of the share capital for the first time after borrowing KRW 1.50 million from the Seocho Branch Co., Ltd. at the beginning of May of the same year, and deposit it in the Southern District of the Seoul Bank at the same time with one of the certificate of deposit capital for the face value immediately after being issued with the certificate of deposit capital for the above branch.

2. On April 1971, in collusion with Co-Defendant 2, 1971, the court below decided that it is necessary to take over KRW 2,50,000 under the active arrangement of Defendant 2, a working-level officer, as the head of the insurance division of the finance division, which is the supervisory office, as Co-Defendant 2's broker of the court below's order to take over KRW 40,000,000,000, in collusion with Co-Defendant 2 of the court below's decision that it is necessary for the defendant to take over the life insurance company through Co-Defendant 2 of the court below's order to send KRW 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and in the future, it is necessary for the defendant to take over the same as the working-level officer of the supervisory office in the process of the operation of the company, which is an insurance company, and it is necessary to respond to it in the future, and deliver KRW 300,0,0,0,00,0,0.

3. On November 1, 1972, at the president office of the Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd., a director general of the Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. requested that the defendant 3, who was found in accordance with the direction of the director general of the accounting office, not make a claim for effective insurance premium at once and make a request to the effect that the defendant 2 would transfer the request to the non-indicted 2 to the non-indicted 2 for a new insurance contract. On the day and around that time, two million won should be delivered to the non-indicted 2, and a bribe shall be given to the public official's official's duties

4. On April 26, 1971, the representative director of the (title omitted) life insurance company was appointed as the representative director of the said company and the company was in office until April 26, 1973 under a compulsory administration order, and thus, the representative director of the said company was in violation of his duty to realize the authority to faithfully manage the company's properties during that period, and thus, he was in violation of his duty to pay the amount of money. On February 2, 1973, 200 won was withdrawn from the lender, i.e., in 20 million won as security of the company's deposits in the said company's possession at around the end of February 1973.

Each fact in the ruling,

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts stated in the judgment of the court below and in the trial court of the party.

1. The statement that corresponds to the first fact in the judgment of the court below by the witness Nonindicted 8.

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of the court below by Defendant 2 (2) , Defendant 3 (3) , Defendant 4 (4) , Co-Defendant 2 (2) , Co-Defendant 1 (1) , Co-Defendant 3 (3) , Co-Defendant 3 (3) , and Co-Defendant 3 (3) .

1. Statement as to the accused in the protocol of interrogation of the prosecutor, which corresponds to each fact; and

1. The fact-finding statement on the preparation of the Korea Stock Exchange Director, the appraisal report prepared by Non-Indicted 6 (market price), the certificate of deposit in the current account, the certificate of deposit and the fact-finding certificate of deposit in the preparation of a branch office of the Japanese bank, the deposit certificate, the deposit receipt, the deposit receipt, six copies of the deposit ledger, and each statement consistent with the facts of the judgment in five copies of the real estate register bound by the records, are sufficient to prove each fact-finding.

In the so-called 'the so-called' of the judgment of the defendant, Article 628 (1) of the Commercial Act, Article 133 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 133 (2) of the Criminal Act, Article 133 (1), and Article 130 (1) of the former Insurance Business Act (Act No. 2288), Article 130 (1) of the former Insurance Business Act, the so-called 'the so-called 'the 'the 'the '' of the 'the ''' of the 'the 'the ''' of the 'the 'the '''' of the 'the 'the 'the ''' of the 'the 'the ''' of the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ''' of the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the '' the 'the ' the '' the ' the ' is.

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

Judges Lee Young-man (Presiding Judge)