beta
Text
1. Two years of imprisonment for Defendant A, three years of imprisonment for Defendant B, six months of imprisonment for Defendant C and one year of imprisonment for Defendant D.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Defendant A, D, and E are the de facto management owners of T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “stock company”) U and V (former trade name: W), and are the representative director of T.
Defendant
D is a director of T and the vice president, and the representative director of V, and Defendant E is a director of V.
Defendant
A decided to take over the right of management of W, which is the right of management of L, which is the right of management of L, which is the right of management of L, which is the right of management of Y mining area or Z mining area (hereinafter referred to as “Y mining area”). On October 13, 201, A, etc. transferred U’s 168,000 shares (5.6%) from A, AB, etc. around October 13, 201, after acquiring the right of management of W, U and U, as the vice president and head of W, and C, who had previously worked in W, entered W and AC as the vice president and head of W, and changed W’s trade name on April 18, 2012 to V, and promoted the project for which W obtained permission for aggregate extraction from the time of Ansan to the name of each of the mining areas of this case.
Defendant A, D, and E conspired to extract aggregate without permission, using TD and AE ships affiliated to T in each of the instant mining areas without permission, and collecting approximately 5,553 tons of aggregate around October 29, 201, and collecting approximately 5,553 tons of aggregate around October 31, 201.
B. On June 2012, Defendant A, D, and E offered money and valuables to Defendant A, a public official in charge of the management of sea area utilization impact assessment to be commissioned to the Pyeongtaek-si Port Authority through Ansan City, in relation to the permission for the extraction of aggregate in each of the instant mining areas, on the first day of June 2012, the following purport: (a) Defendant A, D, and E offered money and valuables to the purport that V can obtain permission for the extraction of aggregate as soon as possible.
Thus, Defendant E is against AF in relation to sea area utilization impact assessment for permission to extract each of the mining areas of this case.