특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant only represented C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) under the name of the assignee of the victim company (hereinafter “C”) and actually controlled C is D and G; and (b) only between D and G, the actual assignee of the victim company, “written agreement between shareholders, such as joint management, etc.” was prepared; and (c) the Defendant did not play any practical role in the instant crime by thoroughly excluding it in the course of the management of the victim company; (d) in light of such fact, the Defendant did not play any substantial role in the instant crime with the name of the president of the branch; and (e) therefore, (e) imprisonment and six
2. Determination
A. According to the records as to the defendant's role as the basic facts of sentencing disputing the defendant, D with bad credit holders used C as a special purpose corporation (SPC) for the acquisition of the victim's company and participated in the acquisition of the victim's company. In taking over 19.22% of the F-owned company's shares necessary for the acquisition of the victim's company, G invests 2.6 billion won of the acquisition price, while acquiring 50% of the C's shares, it decided to manage the victim company jointly with D with D by taking over 50% of the C's shares and jointly with D, and D prepared a "written agreement between shareholders, such as joint management, etc." (Evidence record 62 pages) between D and D around November 2012. However, D tried to take over the victim company after being introduced from credit service providers, etc., but failed to raise the remainder of D's shares after taking over 10 billion won of the C's shares from D and D 300 billion won of the loan.