A contract entered into with respect to shares 1,473,585, regardless of whether it was before or after the change of a trade name, was concluded on the shares of 1,473,585, and the deception is not recognized because the Defendant, the purchaser, was not obligated to notify the victim of the purpose of purchase. At the time, the Defendant already received a total of KRW 6.5 billion from G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) with the purchase price of shares and management rights owned by the Defendant, and was expected to receive the remainder of KRW 2.5 billion on October 29, 2010, after receiving a total of KRW 6.5 billion from G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the Defendant had intent and ability to pay the purchase price to the victim.

However, on October 29, 2010, G’s temporary general meeting of shareholders was unexpected by the Defendant, and the payment date of KRW 2.5 billion, which is the balance of the said transfer price, was postponed on November 19, 2010. G was prevented from paying the purchase price of stocks of the sales contract concluded with the victim due to changes in circumstances where it did not pay any balance on November 19, 2010 for the reason of management right dispute.

Even if a defendant's fraud is established, the damage incurred to the victim is KRW 483,335,880 per share, which is the market price at the time of E shares, and thus, criminal fraud should be applied under the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case by applying the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes to the crime of violation of the Act.

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (three years of the suspended sentence of one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles is alleged.