A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[2015 Highest 1356] Defendant is a person who operates D Co., Ltd.

The Defendant purchased “factory buildings located in Gangnam-si E, F, G, H, I, and J each site and site (hereinafter “factory buildings”) in the name of H on January 27, 2003. On April 1, 2003, the Defendant transferred the ownership under the name of the kind offering K, and continued to use the said factory buildings, the decision of commencement of voluntary auction on September 30, 2008, which was issued on September 30, 2008, for agricultural products manufacturing and processing factory under the name of (ju) D.

On July 5, 2011, the Defendant: (a) on July 5, 2011, the Do Private Savings Bank, a party with low right, issued a voluntary application for commencement of auction on the above factory building, and supplied it to the Do Private Savings Bank, which voluntarily decided to commence auction; and (b) on the supply of yellow dust to the victim L, who is in a location where the above factory building cannot be supplied if it goes beyond others, was supplied in advance, and used the proceeds sold as the successful bid price for auction of the factory building; and (c) had the victim not paid the sulfur

On April 2012, the Defendant found the “N Office” operated by the person who suffered damage from Gangnam-si Ma, and concluded that “The D factory building was put in excess of auction, and there is insufficient money to obtain the bid price for the inside of the factory, and if there is no money to supply the auction bid bond, the Defendant would create a security deposit by converting the yellow land into the auction bid bond, and receive the successful bid price and repay the price by receiving the loan from the awarded factory building as security.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was not capable of paying the price even if he was supplied by the injured party due to the lack of economic circumstances to the extent that he would be in arrears with the wages of the employees working in D, and even if he was given a loan to the above awarded factory as security, the loan was not sufficient to cover 850 million won with the successful bid price. Therefore, the Defendant actually obtained a loan to the victim with the factory building as security.