Text
Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.
The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The victim Q Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Q Co., Ltd.”) is a company that constructed the “SCC club” located in the Rcheon-si (hereinafter “instant golf club”). The Defendants were members of the “SCC Shareholders Council” comprised of the persons who become the shareholders of T in accordance with the rehabilitation plan authorized in the rehabilitation procedure against T, after having sold the golf club membership from T or acquired the membership from third party.
In fact, this golf course was created by T to obtain the 160 billion won PF loan from the branch of Gyeonggi-do, and T to repay the PF loan by selling its membership rights, but in the international financial crisis at the end of 2008, the victim company, a contractor, was unable to repay the PF loan due to the decline in the value of golf membership rights due to the decline in the value of golf membership rights. The cost of construction is increased due to a design change due to unexpected reasons in the construction process. U.S. Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of the victim company, awarded a contract for the golf course of this case by public sale in trust, and operated the golf course with the approval of the change in the business plan from Gyeonggi-do branch to U.S. to the rehabilitation company. The victim company did not intentionally delay construction in order to illegally deduct the golf course of this case.
Nevertheless, the Defendants: (a) calculated an excessive construction cost on purpose while executing the instant golf course; (b) delayed construction period; (c) planned bankruptcy by causing the operation of the instant golf course to a strike state; and (d) ordered U.S. U. as the subsidiary company of the victim company to win the instant golf course; and (b) avoided the instant golf course from the Defendants, the shareholders of T.
The victim company asserts that the defendant's golf course in this case is against the defendants.