beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);
A. The Defendant, in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) related to the acquisition of the company, omitted the entry of the “stock company” in the name of the company
(2) The Defendant did not take part in the act of offering real estate as collateral. The Defendant did not take part in the act of offering the acquisition of the instant company as collateral. The Defendant merely acted as a broker for the acquisition of the instant company and did not take part in the process of acquisition or management after the acquisition of the said company. The Defendant’s status and role is the same in essence as H’s position and role that mainly took part in collecting the loan on behalf of the bond company. Moreover, the Defendant merely borrowed the acquisition fund with the acquisition of stocks as collateral and cannot be deemed to have borrowed the acquisition fund with the acquisition of real estate as collateral as collateral as stated in the facts charged. 2) The Defendant is not a party to the contract regarding the instant company, and is not a contractual relationship. Meanwhile, the Defendant is not a party to the contract regarding the instant company, and is not a party to the contract, and on the other hand, the acquirer is not
Therefore, the transferee, including the Defendant, cannot be deemed to have been in the position of “a person who administers another’s business” in the process of acquiring the instant company.
3. Since the acquisition of the company in this case by transfer of the existing debt of the company in this case with the amount loaned by the obligees, the company in this case can be deemed to have been fully liable for repayment equivalent to the interest on the borrowed loan for acquisition, and the interest rate is lower than the interest rate on the existing debt, and there is no change in the corporate debt ratio.
Ultimately, it cannot be deemed that damage was caused to E by the act of offering collateral.