우회상장기업의 회계부정에 대한 감사실패: K사 사례

This study examines accounting frauds of K Co.,Ltd, especially focusing on audit failure. Established in 2000, K Co.,Ltd is a semiconductor wafer company. It was successful in developing its own differentiated production technologies, building its reputation in a short period of time. K Co.,Ltd was listed in KOSDAQ in 2009 through backdoor listing, and was subsequently delisted after the revelation of accounting frauds uncovered by audit opinion disclaimer by external auditor in the following year. Due to unexpected delisting of K Co.,Ltd, many investors suffered great losses, which damaged the confidence in KOSDAQ market. This paper addresses the accounting frauds by K Co.,Ltd and also a wide range of auditing issues including the identification of audit risk factors such as inherent risk, control risk and detection risk and professional skepticism. K Co.,Ltd conducted several accounting frauds over the years before the back-door listing. First, K Co.,Ltd conducted fictitious sales and purchases through cross-trading among several paper companies and affiliated companies. This fictitious sales resulted in overstatement of accounts receivables, advances, inventories and accounts payables. In addition, the company overstated inventories by recognizing raw materials just for processing services as its assets. Second, K Co.,Ltd committed accounting frauds in relation to tangible assets. Specifically, K Co.,Ltd booked fictitious non-existent assets, conducted inadequate accounting treatments for capitalizing the cost of conducting trial runs, and intentionally delayed reclassification timing of construction-in-process into equipment, thereby inflated earnings. However, the auditor did not detect a wide range of accounting frauds, allowing K Co.,Ltd to successfully implement back-door listing, only to be listed in August 2010, less than a year after listing. B accounting firm, the auditor of K Co.,Ltd underestimated inherent risk in audit planning and also did not conduct enough audit efforts to evaluate the weaknesses of internal control system, thereby underestimating control risk, too. Inaccurate evaluation of inherent and control risk led to insufficient substantive tests, leading to audit failure. In addition, B accounting firm did not perform audits with professional skepticism, paying scant attention to several suspicious situations indicating accounting frauds. Due to the characteristics of fraud, including the fact that fraud may include sophisticated and carefully organized schemes designed to conceal it or may involve collusion, the auditor’s professional skepticism is particularly important when considering the risks of material misstatement due to fraud. The regulator, the Securities and Futures Commission took severe disciplinary action against B accounting firm. Disciplinary actions include penalty surcharge, additional reserve of joint compensation fund for loss, restrictions of audit work for K Co.,Ltd for three years. Most of cases on accounting frauds are based on hypothetical situations prepared for educational purposes and have limitations in providing auditing students with an opportunity for applied learning in a realistic audit setting. This case provides a unique opportunity to examine and reflect on the challenges of auditing. The case focuses on auditors’ responsibilities related to obtaining and evaluating audit evidence. It also explores internal control evaluation responsibilities. Case details provide opportunities for class discussions and foster students’ critical thinking skills on auditing topics such as audit risk evaluations. The case requires auditing students to critically analyze real-world accounting fraud scandal and to consider the external auditor’s responsibility for detecting and communicating financial statement fraud.