A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and by a fine of ten thousand won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

On October 13, 2010, the Defendant was appointed as the representative director of the victim EE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) on the second floor of the DD building established for the purpose of trucking transport business, etc., and breached the duty of due care as a good manager for the sake of the victim’s company upon delegation. On March 4, 2011, the Defendant breached the duty of due care of a good manager for the sake of the victim’s company. On March 4, 2011, a notary public, on the second and third floor of the FF building of Busan, Busan, under the duty of due care of a good manager, acquired the victim’s company from G around April 6, 2010 before acquiring and operating the victim company. The amount equivalent to the above amount of money lending contract is equivalent to 50 million won for the personal debt of the victim company as the debt debt, and had a notary public acquire the same economic profits with the victim’s property profits.

The defendant of "2016 Gohap37" is the actual operator of the corporation I and J in Busan Dongdong-gu H and 4, and K (guilty on January 17, 2014) is the chief executive officer who manages the employees as the chief executive officer.

The Defendant, together with K, acquired a large amount of claim for the price of goods, the exercise of which is unclear due to the lapse of the statute of limitations, etc., and conspired to conduct a business to collect claims against multiple debtors through an electronic payment order application.

The Defendant, along with K, takes over a large amount of bonds traded at the price of 1 to 10% of the original bond value among the cities due to a lack of a long period of time from the date of occurrence of claims, such as goods-price bonds, such as functional health foods, credit card bonds, etc., and requested an electronic payment order against the debtors, and then, the obligor withdraws the electronic payment order, etc. in cases where the obligor claims the extinction of prescription or contests the existence of the bonds.