beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for four months and by imprisonment for nine months.
However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On November 21, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of the execution on March 31, 201 to the Seoul Central District Court for the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Embezzlement), which was sentenced to the suspension of the execution on March 21, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 27, 2014 by the same court, sentenced to the imprisonment of two years for the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Fraud) on October 18, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 25, 2014 by the same court.
1. On April 2012, Defendant B and Defendant A conspiredd the victim G with the intent to make an investment in the acquisition price of H acquisition, which was promoted by Defendant B, and the Defendants conspired to use the money received from the victim by dividing them.
around May 3, 2012, the Defendants: “The victim G deposited KRW 9.1 billion with the law firm in order to acquire H with the representative L of the K and the K and the K in charge of the management of the H representative M and the acquisition of the management right to the law firm, and the acceptance is completed immediately after preparing a performance certificate. If the Defendants lent KRW 300 million to the K in charge of the acquisition of the H, they will repay the principal and interest KRW 100 million until June 22, 2012, and will lend KRW 1.0 billion to the above company within 15 days from the date of the acquisition of the said company.” Defendant A said that “If the amount of KRW 75 million out of the above KRW 300 million is transferred to the domestic account, the above amount will be paid to B.”
However, on May 3, 2012, H acceptance work carried out with L and N at the time of Defendant B’s purchase of stocks with O, the largest shareholder of the said company, was in the negotiations with different opinions. However, it is unclear whether Defendant A, who did not simultaneously carry out Defendant B, L and H takeover work, was aware of such negotiations.
Defendant
B. ..