logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2012.11.01 2011고합100
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기) 등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for five years, and for ten months, for each of the defendants B.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Ⅰ. Defendant A attempted M&A of securities listed companies in the capital market since the late 1990s, and the Defendant is so called the so-called “Cho-Sa,” and is subject to prosecution together with criticism of small-sum investors.

From May 2009, the Defendant came to know that L Co., Ltd (hereinafter “instant company”) failed to repay the principal and interest of 5.4 billion won for bonds with warrants for which early redemption was claimed, and the auction procedure for the company’s factory site and buildings was commenced, and that the financial structure was lost due to the accumulated deficit, etc. while promoting capital increase for the purpose of securing funds, the Defendant was trying to sell the instant company’s stocks and management rights owned by M Co., Ltd. (O was changed to N Co., Ltd. on August 31, 2009; hereinafter “N”), a major shareholder, and M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) under its control, regardless of whether it was before or after the mutual change.

From the end of June 2009 to the beginning of July 2009, the Defendant had access to M and completed the period of 30 billion won as if it had been holding the capital of 30 billion won. According to the terms and conditions presented by M, the Defendant acquired the shares of the instant company in the amount of 10 billion won, including the management premium, and repaid the outstanding principal and interest of the bonds, and normalize the instant company by normalizing the company. On the other hand, the Defendant suggested the acquisition of shares and management rights to support the company up to 30 million won by promoting a new business using one’s reputation and so on.

However, the Defendant did not have any funds or assets actually held, and in a normal way, did not have any intent and ability to resolve liquidity shortage problems. However, after securing the shares of the instant company in advance, he took over the management rights of the instant company by taking advantage of his reputation, which is called Smi-si.

arrow