beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and four months, and by imprisonment of one year and four months, respectively.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. The Defendants were living together from February 2008 to December 201, 201, and Defendant B was a person who operated the manufacturing company of electronic parts called “F” in the old Si E.
However, the area including the building and land of the above company operated by Defendant B was planned to be developed into the Gu-U.S. G complex, and around September 30, 2009, the plan was approved by the National Assembly. At that time, Defendant B had a large amount of debt to be borne by Defendant B while operating the above company. However, the Defendants had a concern that the compensation for the land being expropriated and paid should not be distributed to them by receiving all other creditors, such as the victim H, etc. according to the plan for the construction of the above Gu-U.S. G complex.
Accordingly, the Defendants made a false agreement or a loan certificate to pretend that Defendant A has a claim against Defendant B, set up a mortgage on the above company building and land on the basis of the fraudulent claim, and conspired to acquire dividends by claiming the claim and the right to collateral security in the compensation distribution procedure to be run later.
A. On October 30, 2009, the Defendants: (a) drafted a written agreement with Defendant A to invest KRW 200,000,000 in Defendant B at the above company’s office; (b) on July 8, 2010, the Defendants created a right to collateral security with the content of “A”, “debtor”, “B”, and “250,000,000 won with respect to the Plaintiff’s land and its ground buildings owned by the Defendant B; and (c) around September 15, 201, the Defendants drafted a certificate of loan with “A”, “B”, “B”, and “292,00,000,000 won with respect to the Plaintiff’s land and its ground buildings.”
However, in accordance with the above public offering, the Defendants were voluntarily prepared, regardless of the substance, and the content of the right to collateral security was not true, and the Defendants’ obligation relationship with such content.