beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.19 2013고합18

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등

Text

Defendant

AO shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of five years.

Defendant

Of the facts charged against A.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

【2013Gohap18, 139】

1. The Defendants’ co-principal Defendant AO served as the representative director of AP (hereinafter “AP”) from December 1, 2004 to November 26, 2010. Defendant A is the representative director of V (hereinafter “V” or “W”) of a company that constructs a complex logistics center on the site of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu TU Terminal located in Seocho-gu Seoul, and the Defendants are siblingss.

AP, CN on October 25, 2005, the trade name was changed to CN, and Defendant A was registered as a representative director from October 25, 2005 to September 1, 2006, as a director or representative director from October 30, 2007, and DV from November 7, 2006 to October 30, 207.

(hereinafter referred to as “CN” and “DU” on March 31, 2003, the trade name was changed to DU, Inc., and DW, a subsequent university of Defendant A, was the representative from March 31, 2003 to February 16, 2009, and Defendant A was the internal director on February 16, 2009.

(hereinafter referred to as “DU”) is a W-related company that actually participates in the operation of Defendant A.

In light of the representative of the above company's corporate register and the relationship between the defendant A and the above company, the circumstances and contents of financial transactions between each of the above companies, and the method of promoting the defendant A's business, the defendant A has the right to make decisions on important matters, such as the above company's business and loan and use of funds, and seems to have actually participated

Defendant AO is a representative director of the AP in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and Defendant AO is a de facto operator of the AP, and the Defendants should not interfere with the recovery of claims in the future in a reasonable and reasonable manner, such as being provided with sufficient security when lending AP funds, and when it is anticipated that some of claims can not be recovered even if there is any shortage of debt repayment ability.