beta
Text
1. As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant A, the defendant No. 2 and No. 3 of the judgment of the court below shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and the defendant No. 2.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for embezzlement at the Changwon District Court on July 5, 2012, and on September 13, 2012, the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 13, 2012, and paroled on December 24, 2012 during the execution of the sentence, and the remaining term of imprisonment has expired on February 14, 2013.
[2013 Highest 684, 2013 Highest 1296]
1. Defendant A is the representative director of F Co., Ltd. F who conducts real estate sale and lease business, and Defendant B is the representative director of G Co., Ltd. who conducts real estate sale and lease business. Defendant A actually runs the above two companies, and Defendant B took overall charge of the above two companies’ accounting business.
Even if the Defendants received an investment from an unspecified number of victims, most of the funds was merely used for other purposes, such as repayment of debts to the existing debtor, profits to senior investors, investment attraction allowances for investment solicitation, daily management funds, etc. In light of the Defendants’ methods of operating the business funds and the management status of the above companies, it is uncertain whether the Defendants may incur investment and agreed profits to investors. Meanwhile, Defendant A is not only a bad credit standing but also a property owned by the Defendants. Accordingly, in order to pay the profits, etc. promised by the Defendants, it is inevitable to manage the funds in the way of “defluence” which is appropriated to the principal and profits of the existing investors, so long as the funds are not continuously induced by a new investor, it is difficult to pay a high-rate profit as agreed upon by the investors, as long as it is anticipated that the funds will not be paid to the investors, and thus there was no intent or ability to return the principal of the investment.
Nevertheless, the Defendants concealed the above facts to the victims, and the victims.