beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, for eight months, for eight months, and for four months, for Defendant C.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[criminal record] Defendant B was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Eastern District Court on October 23, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 24 of the same month, Defendant C was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the same crime in the same court on the same day, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the 24th of the same month.
[2] Defendant B is a person who actually operates the company of this case, Defendant A is an auditor of the company of this case, and Defendant C is a person who is in charge of employee education and customer counseling as the auditor of the company of this case, and Defendant C is a person who is in charge of employee education and customer counseling.
Defendant A and Defendant C, at the office of the instant company around March 201, in collusion with the Defendants, may enter the victim F who was the director of the division of the instant company as the head of the division of the instant company, “The land is located in Chungcheongnam-gun G land in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and now, at present, KRW 250,000 per square day, but may later go from several million to KRW 60,000.
It seems that there is a sea and H bathing beach, and later, it is possible to purchase it for investment purposes, as the price as a pent site is monthly or higher, and it is also possible to operate a business because it is a penture.
The land may be registered in one month as soon as the transfer is not registered in the future of the company and may be registered in two weeks as soon as the transfer is being prepared.
“The phrase “ was false.”
However, in fact, the instant company had low sales performance of real estate and failed to pay employee benefits, etc. from November 201, 2010, and thus, the Defendants thought that they would be used to pay office operating expenses, employee benefits and allowances even if they receive money from the injured party under the name of the purchase price. There was no intention or ability to transfer the ownership of real estate to the victim
In this respect.