Defendant shall be punished by a fine of eight million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of corporation E (hereinafter referred to as "E") with the fourth floor of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building, and the F is the E subsidiary.

On November 21, 201, the Defendant established a pledge on FF shares owned by the Defendant, 60,000 shares, and 10,000 shares owned by E, in order to secure all the principal and interest of KRW 1,204,924,768 due to the Defendant’s default, the amount of damages due to nonperformance, and the expenses for the execution of the pledge.

In such cases, the pledger should not extinguish a right under the pledge without the consent of the pledgee or make any change detrimental to the rights of the pledgee.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the above duties and arbitrarily transferred 60,000 shares of F Co., Ltd., Ltd., the market value of which is equivalent to KRW 300,000,000, at its own face value, to E on December 2011, making it difficult for the Defendant to recover the secured claim by extinguishing the right that is the object of the victim’s pledge.

Accordingly, the Defendant had E obtain economic benefits equivalent to the market price of the above shares, and caused damage to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. The statements of witnesses H and I in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a contract for pledge of rights and written consent of pledge;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 355 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the actual value of the shares of this case for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order is insignificant, and thus, it does not seem that the victim actually suffered damage due to the crime of this case, and the defendant committed the crime of this case while the defendant tried to normalize the operation of E.