beta
Text
The Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged Defendant A from February 2008 to the same year
4. From April 24, 2008 to May 11, 2009, H served as the representative director of the Victim I Co., Ltd. (the trade name was changed to J on May 17, 2010) respectively.
Defendant
When the service period of A and H overlaps, when Defendant A transferred the victim company to H, the business area overlaps.
At this time, Defendant A and H have a duty to represent each victim company and exercise overall control over fund management, and protect and maintain the company's property so as not to cause damage to the company.
Defendant
A around April 2008, in order to repay the debt owed to H, A agreed to evaluate and transfer 5.6 million shares of the victim company owned by H at the market price (the price at the time of the acquisition of new shares) higher than 2,500 won per share (the price at the time of the acquisition of new shares) at the time of 5.6 million shares of the victim company owned by H, to repay the substitute, and thereafter inform the defendant B of the fact.
Defendant
B requested the defendant A to sell 1.5 million shares of the victim company owned by him at the same price.
Defendant
A delivered this content to H, and Defendant B and H consulted on specific contents.
Defendant
B and H shall ensure that, around April 25, 2008, at the office of Defendant B located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, H sells the same amount of KRW 3.75 billion per share to a third party until May 20, 2008 by “Defendant B sells the same amount of KRW 1.5 billion per share to a third party until May 20, 2008.”
The shares which have not been sold by the above deadline shall be acquired by H.
Defendant
B drafted a written agreement with the purport that “if the total acquisition value falls short of KRW 3.75 million, H will compensate the difference,” (hereinafter the above agreement is referred to as “instant agreement”; and the above agreement is referred to as “the instant agreement”).
Defendant
B is insufficient solely with the agreement of this case where H bears the obligation of an individual
I think.