Defendant

Enzym Kim-jin (Court of Second Instance), Jeon Soo-chul (Court of Second Instance)

Attorney Jeong-won

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that the execution of a sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as "non-indicted 1 corporation") located in Bupyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 2 omitted).

Around September 30, 2013, the Defendant took out a loan of KRW 1 billion from the victim Nonindicted Company 2 in a vice-dried factory of Nonindicted Company 1, and entered into a movable property security contract with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.2 billion against the machinery 17 billion, including two parts (mechanic number 3 omitted) owned by Nonindicted Company 1 in the factory. On October 7, 2013, the Defendant took out a loan of KRW 1 billion for the loan of small and medium enterprise facilities, and thus, the Defendant had the duty to keep the collateral so that the victim may achieve the purpose of the security.

On October 30, 2015, the Defendant, in violation of his duty, sold and occupied 63 million won to the Chinese △△ Electronic Co., Ltd., which the Defendant acquired the shares of the Defendant.

As a result, the defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to the market price of the two rash processing machine, and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 11

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 35, and Nonindicted 36

1. A credit transaction agreement, a contract to establish a collateral security right, the current status of the object, and a list of appraisal and assessment of machines, instruments and structures;

1. A machine exchange confirmation case; and

1. Letters of goods and notices of the date of auction of movables;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 355(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Imprisonment Selection

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration favorable Circumstances among the Reasons for Sentencing below)

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Whether the person manages another person's business;

The defendant's defense counsel argues that in the case of double selling of movable property to the defendant who voluntarily disposed of a security after concluding a security contract on movable property, the legal principle that does not regard the seller as the person who administers another's business (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Do10479 Decided January 20, 201) should be applied. However, since the conclusion of a sales contract and the status of the person who takes custody of the security after receiving money to conclude and borrow the status of the dual seller who only bears the contractual obligation, the status of the person who takes custody of the security should be different, the latter is a person who administers another'

2. Action by negligence.

The defendant's defense counsel asserts that the defendant can obtain permission from the damaged bank to dispose of the raman processing machine, so it is an negligent disposition. However, according to the evidence of conviction mentioned above, if the damaged bank permits the disposition of the defendant and takes substitution for other security, it is highly probable that the damaged bank did not accept the fraudulent act between other creditors because it would have high possibility of establishing the alternative security (No. 10 pages of investigation record), and the defendant or the person in charge of disposal clearly recognized that the damaged bank did not have permission from the damaged bank (No. 2, No. 3 pages of the witness record No. 11) and made a disposition without reasonable doubt. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

1. Scope of recommendations;

* When considering the market price of the rash processing machine as inferior, examining the defendant most favorable to him;

Type 1 (100 million won) (1 to 10 months) Basic Area

* If the market price of the rash processing machine is KRW 63 million, the market price of the rash processing machine:

Type 2 (100 to less than 50 million won) > Basic area (6 months to 2 years)

Each special person: No penalty shall be imposed for each special person;

2. Determination of sentence;

The fact that the defendant is clearly aware of the act causing damage to the damaged bank, and the defendant's share is deducted from the Chinese corporation that acquired the defendant's share, and the rash processing machine purchased in 117,50,000 won per unit and disposed of after the lapse of two years, so the value of the defense counsel is reasonable, unlike the assertion of the defense counsel, is considered to be disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the agreement with the damaged bank, the fact that the defendant has no criminal record of the suspension of execution or more, and the defendant has led to the confession of his/her crime at the end of the public trial unlike the opinions of the counsel.

Considering these various circumstances, the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the age and family environment of the defendant, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment and the execution of the sentence is suspended.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Byung-chul