Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year for a crime of 1 or 2 in its holding, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of 3 months in its holding.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A On January 7, 2010, the Seoul High Court sentenced 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment for the crime of occupational embezzlement, and 3 years of suspended execution. The judgment became final and conclusive on March 15, 2012.

Defendant

A is the representative of M Co., Ltd., which is the executing company of LW at the Gyeonggi Kimpo-si, and B is the representative of N Co., Ltd., the contractor of the said new construction.

Defendant

A entered into a subcontract agreement with B on June 12, 2009 and carried out construction work. However, as the financial situation has deteriorated and the construction has ceased for more than eight months, A would obtain money from the victim K as the sale price for commercial buildings.

1. On September 8, 201, Defendant A told the victim that “A would sell 105 units on the ground level and 203 units on the ground level after completing a commercial building until January 201, 201, in the sales office located in the Gyeonggi Kimpo-si, Gyeonggi-si, that “it is necessary to newly construct a shop and to withdraw an auction during the process of the auction, 400 million won is required, and 400 million won is loaned until January 201.”

However, around that time, the fairness ratio of the above new commercial building was less than 50%, and around April 2009, Defendant A borrowed KRW 2.8 billion from the above site for the above new commercial building from the Kimpoup Cooperatives as collateral, and continued to work with additional loans of KRW 1.4 billion from the Hachi Mutual Savings Bank after lending the name of N Co., Ltd. which was operated by B around March 30, 2010. However, on December 30 of the same year, the circumstances, such as the commencement of the voluntary auction procedure due to the delinquency in repayment of loans, etc. on or around December 30 of the same year, which led to the aggravation of funds. Since there was no particular property or income, Defendant A had no intent or ability to sell the commercial building normally to the victim even if having received money from the victim as the sale price.

Nevertheless, the defendant A deceivings the victim, and its equipment is above the victim around September 8, 201.