특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, ① the Defendant granted L to L a third priority right of profit-making (hereinafter “instant priority right of profit-making”) with respect to the land for living facilities in G and the construction of new buildings in K block (hereinafter “J and K block project”) for the purpose of raising the business funds of E (hereinafter “E”) by this L and AA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”), and thus, it is irrelevant to E’s business.
shall not be deemed to exist.
② The instant preferential benefit right is granted to L, a third party designated by C, the creditor, by means of repayment of loan obligations, etc., borne by E to C at the time. Therefore, it is difficult to view it as disposing of E’s property.
Therefore, in granting the right to preferential profit of this case, it cannot be deemed that the resolution of the board of directors or the consent of shareholders is necessary, and the defendant did not undergo the above procedure.
the defendant has the intent to commit a breach of trust.
subsection (b) of this section.
③ Since L’s acquisition by the instant preferential profit right is deducted from the loans or profits to be paid from E in excess of the amount, there is a risk of property damage to E.
shall not be deemed to exist.
2) The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution) against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles can acquire a claim for reimbursement against the future C
In full view of the fact that this cannot be deemed as acquiring profits by causing damage, and that there is no possibility of damage after the fact, C and E are separate corporations whose shareholder composition is different, which may result in harm to the interests of the E shareholders due to the joint and several guarantee of this case, and C were in excess of the debt at the time, it is the joint and several guarantee of this case.