특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the crime of occupational embezzlement is acquitted.
Punishment of the crime
On April 20, 2008, the Defendant: (a) received KRW 210 million from the victim E, and (b) transferred the right to collateral on the land F and six parcels of land, which were set forth as the maximum debt amount as KRW 900 million, to the victim; and (c) drafted a written contract for the transfer of the full amount of collateral security to the victim.
Despite the fact that the Defendant had a duty to transfer the right to collateral security established in the name of the Defendant to the victim, the Defendant violated his duty and appears to have “H” as stated in the G’s indictment to the effect that the right to collateral security established in the name of the Defendant on March 31, 2009 was erroneous in the clerical error of “G”.
On April 1, 2009, it transferred to the court and completed additional registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security.
Accordingly, the Defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 900,000,000 from the above G, and the victim suffered damages equivalent to the same amount.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Legal statement of witness E;
1. The first written statement against the defendant in part of the interrogation protocol of the prosecution;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes attached to written complaints;
1. Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012; hereinafter “former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes”) concerning criminal facts, Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act [However, the upper limit of punishment shall be 15 years of imprisonment prescribed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Act”)
2. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion and judgment on the following grounds for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Discretionary Mitigation and Mitigation Criminal Act (the following grounds for sentencing)
1. The gist of the assertion is that the victim, who is a joint business proprietor, needs to prepare money to be invested from another person.