The purpose of this paper is to discuss the criminal responsibility of issuing of cheap convertible bonds using the case of Samsung Everland which Samsung Everland issued convertible bonds for dirt cheap in a scheme to have chairman Lee Kun-hee’s son inherit control of the Samsung group. According to the final decision of Supreme Court, Korea, the case was received the verdict of not guilty. As following the Supreme Court ruling, the interpretation restricted the concept of an act in violation of one's duty to a certain behavior having a potential risk of damage. However, the final decision has some doubtable factors to question its adequateness. Defining the duty violation using the factor of potential damage ignored the other factors such as justness(legitimacy) of purpose, due process, rationality of means. Additionally, it seems that the logical background of the final decision disbanded all factors equivalently without any weights on the certain behavior. That is, as excluding the factor of loss, it is clear that the accused issued the unfair convertible bond with wrongful purpose against due process. Therefore, it is clear to assert a possibility of breach of duty. On this paper I am going to go through the overall a jump in the logic for the decision of Supreme Court on criminal responsibility of issuing of cheap convertible bonds of Samsung Everland, and discuss the need of reconsideration of the case.

[대상판결] 대법원 2009. 5. 29. 선고 2007도4949 전원합의체 판결
  소송의 경과
  사실관계
  판결이유요지
 [참조판결] 대법원 2009. 5. 29. 선고 2008도9436 판결
  소송의 경과
  사실관계
  판결이유요지
 〔연구〕
  I. 서 론
  II. 전환사채의 저가발행과 이사의 임무위배행위
  III. 전환사채 저가발행과 회사의 손해
  IV. 주관적 구성요건의 충족 여부
  V. 결 론
  [참고문헌]
  [Abstract]

• 황정인(경정, 형사정책연구원 파견) | Hwang, Jeong In