logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2015.06.18 2013고합111
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. A. A. around July 2007, the Defendant established a stock company E (E) in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dtel 501 (hereinafter “E”), took office as a representative director, and registered the victim F and G wife H as a shareholder holding 1/3 shares, and agreed to purchase, develop, and sell 80 million won in cooperation with the victim and G, respectively, in the name of E and to distribute the profit according to the investment ratio.

On July 11, 2007, the Defendant, upon receiving an investment of KRW 800 million from the victim and purchased J. On January 30, 2009, sold the said land in KRW 8.5 billion to the same stock company (hereinafter “same”), and received KRW 6.0 billion out of the price and kept the victim’s share of KRW 800 million for the victim, the Defendant embezzled the said land as purchase price for the Gyeonggi-si L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”), the representative director of which he purchased under the name of the company (hereinafter “K”), and three parcels (hereinafter “M”).

B. The Defendant is the actual representative of the N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”), and the victim P as the husband of Q, who is the representative director of P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P”), actually operated P.

On April 2008, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the Defendant’s house located in Q and P, the Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-gun, the Gyeonggi-do, to purchase approximately KRW 400,000 (hereinafter “instant land”) for the total of KRW 1 billion in the down payment of KRW 1 billion, the intermediate payment of KRW 6 billion, and KRW 5 billion in the remainder, and paid KRW 1 billion in the down payment of KRW 1 billion to the complainant, but the contract was reversed as the intermediate payment, etc. was later agreed upon.

Since then, the Defendant concluded a sales contract on the instant land with the victim twice again, but the purchase price is stipulated by an agreement.

arrow