특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. As to the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding and legal scenarios), the lower court simply assessed that the value of the Defendant’s stocks and real estate held at the time exceeds the amount of the obligation. In evaluating the value of assets, the possibility of realization in the market as well as the face value should be taken into account. The stocks held by the Defendant at the time were virtually impossible even in light of the source of defense against management rights or concerns over the decline in market price due to mass sale, and real estate also was difficult to be sold immediately because collateral security is established.
With respect to the Defendant’s obligation to G (hereinafter “G”) (the Defendant’s father’s embezzlement) (the Defendant’s act of embezzlement) the fact-finding inquiry reply to G with the representative director, K, the Defendant’s father, on the ground of this, cannot be deemed as merely KRW 5.8 billion as of September 28, 2009, because it is difficult to view that the content of the fact-finding inquiry inquiry inquiry reply (Evidence 2) about G with respect to G, the Defendant’s representative director, was merely KRW 5.8 billion as of September 28, 2009. Moreover, the Defendant’s continued embezzlement of G’s funds from September 28, 2009 to January 12,
In addition, the Securities and Futures Commission filed a complaint against the defendant at the prosecution on the price manipulation, unjust enrichment, etc. around January 2009, considering that the defendant was investigated at the time of the loan of this case or that the defendant's embezzlement crime was discovered to K around the end of 2009, which was actually discovered to his father at the time of the loan of this case, and thereafter the prosecution commenced a personal investigation against the defendant on or around March 2010 as the charge of embezzlement of a million won, it is highly likely that the defendant will be detained.
The defendant has provided his/her stocks and real estate as security to many financial institutions and bond dealers, or has been under investigation for suspicion of his/her market manipulation, etc.