beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
【Reason leading to the crime】
1. The Defendant and the victim’s related Defendant were the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) established for the purpose of the housing construction business, and the victim H was the one who was the subcontractor of the Seoul Guro-gu I and 4 lots of ground shopping districts (hereinafter “J shopping districts”) constructed by G around 2004.
2. On September 21, 2004, the victim of the delay in the registration of the number of commercial buildings and the transfer of ownership had been sold in lots from G around September 21, 2004 with K by another subcontractor, and at KRW 206 to 210, the sale price of J commercial buildings was settled in full by offsetting the loans and the claim for the construction cost against the existing G, but the defendant did not cause any registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of the victim after the completion of J commercial buildings (registration of the preservation of ownership on June 27, 2005) and did not cause any registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of the victim, the Korean National Bank of Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean National Bank"), the upper limit of the claim amount of KRW 5.4 billion against K commercial buildings, the amount of KRW 206 to KRW 1360,000,000,000 to KRW 1360,000,000.
3. On November 30, 2007, while the filing of the claim for the transfer of ownership of this case was in progress from around 2003 to the registration, G was sentenced to reversal of the previous G winning portion on November 30, 2007 by the Supreme Court, and it is anticipated that the corporate association L would take measures such as seizure and auction against the J commercial building. In such a case, the application for the extension of the G lending contract (principal KRW 1 billion) against the Hyundai Switzerland Savings Bank against the right holder of the J commercial building was likely to be rejected.
The defendant explained the above situation to the victim around January 2008, and "it is possible to receive dividends even if seizure and auction are made."