logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.22 2017노665
자본시장과금융투자업에관한법률위반등
Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

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

The judgment below

Part of acquittal.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The P Co., Ltd. (the part of the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act), Inc. (hereinafter “P”) conducted a capital increase for consideration by the third party allocation method on February 10, 2009. The Defendant borrowed 15 billion won from the bond company to pay the capital increase for consideration in the name of a third party in the name of the third party and paid the capital increase immediately.

In addition, on May 2009, the Defendant entered into a false agreement with U-owned corporation to take over the extraction rights of 15 billion won in Kazak mine and lend 19.5 billion won to it, and announced a half-yearly report including this, which was convicted of the above act, and the P was listed on February 9, 2010.

The victim S consistently stated in the investigative agency and the court that “The reason for the acquisition of corporate bonds with rights to receive new shares is due to the success of capital increase of 15 billion won for consideration.”

S was aware of the fact that investment was made in the company which discontinued the listing before the instant case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The lower court, which did not recognize a deceptive scheme, did not err by mistake in violation of the rules of evidence collection.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too uncomparably unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts is based on its stated reasoning. However, the lower court’s determination is based on the facts suspected of being guilty, but prior to S’s professional investor experience and experience, S’s past investment records, details and evaluation of the P 12th quarter financial status table, immediately before acquiring the instant new shares, which was published on May 15, 2009, the purpose of raising the capital increase initially announced, accounts for advance payment of P, which is inconsistent with the purpose of raising the capital increase initially announced, and before S acquires the new shares, the Financial Supervisory Service.

arrow