beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for six months, each of the defendants B.
, however, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[Criminal Justice] On September 10, 2010, Defendant A was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution for a crime of fraud, etc. at the Seogu District Court Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court, and the sentence became final and conclusive on the 18th of the same month. Defendant B was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Daegu District Court on August 30, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 9, 2013.
【Criminal Facts】
1. Defendant A was the representative director of G in the Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon. Defendant A, at the time, who was the auditor of the said company (as above, at the Daegu District Court rendered a sentence of 10% of imprisonment with labor on August 30, 2012) at the time, and, around August 26, 2009, Defendant A made a false deposit in the head of the Tong to the effect that “A company G is a company that manufactures teaching materials for fish education, the company’s shares are educational owners, and the educational shares are no law, so that an investment may be made if the shares are purchased and listed for sale of 3,500 won per share.” In investing in our company, Defendant A would make monthly dividends of 1.5% of the amount invested. In addition, when a cash is needed at any time, he/she would make a false deposit in the head of the Tong to return the shares of 15% of the company, thereby making a false deposit in the head of the Tong.”
However, in fact, the Defendant was liable to pay 1.7 billion won a debt around December 2008, and around August 2009, the said company did not have any business performance, and thus, it was extremely difficult to operate funds due to the failure to pay the printing cost of the books issued by the said company. On the other hand, while the development of teaching materials was entering money and the market was not secured. Therefore, even if receiving the investment money from the victim, the Defendant continued to guarantee high profits, and there was no intention or ability to pay dividends of 1.5% a month or return the investment money.
Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.