특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
To the extent that it does not interfere with the defendant's right of defense, part of the facts charged was appropriately revised.
On December 5, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and eight months at the Jeju District Court for fraud, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 22, 2020.
From around 2016, the Defendant was instructed to demand repayment of the debt amounting to KRW KRW 100 million due to the construction work and horse racing, etc. that continued without funds.
On the other hand, the injured party B (hereinafter “victim”) suffered financial difficulties due to delay in completion due to E’s detention, which is the actual operator, while implementing the C Multi-household 19 Construction Project from December 2015 to Jeju.
On June 2016, the Defendant was registered as a director of the victimized Company on June 29, 2017 on the ground that he tried to complete the above construction work at the request of the representative director F of the victimized Company, and was proposed to take over the victimized Company from F who was under the burden of operating the Construction Company due to lack of experience around July 1, 2017.
On the same day, the Defendant issued a letter of delegation to the effect that “the delegation of all the powers and responsibilities of the representative of the victimized company incurred after July 1, 2017 to A” was “a person who shall be delegated to A,” while the Defendant proceed with F with the sale of c G, H, I, J, K (L on the register), M (N on the register),O (P on the register), Qho (S on the register), and Qho (S on the register), with F’s permission, but the Defendant shall pay 200 million won to F upon completion of the sale.
“Preparation of an instrument and a loan certificate to the effect that “C8 is wholly entrusted with the right of sale in lots.”
Therefore, the defendant had a duty to properly manage the assets of the damaged company, but he was willing to arbitrarily sell the loans owned by the damaged company for the repayment of the debts owed to R.
Therefore, the defendant is against F in the first place in July 2017.