The owner of a wedding consulting firm who used wedding preparation expenses from more than 100 prospective couples to pay off company debt has been sentenced to life in prison.
According to the court today (12th), the Seoul Central District Court Criminal 25 (Judge Kwon Young-hye) sentenced A (54), the actual representative of the consulting company, to 4 years and 6 months in prison.
It was revealed that Mr. A had been using the money for studio photography, wedding dress, and makeup, called 'Sudme', from the prospective couple and used it to pay off the company's debt.
A wedding consulting company connects companies so that customers can receive 'Sudme' service, and operates in a way that receives a certain fee from the company.
However, it has been found that Mr. A's company has continued to operate in such a way that the amount to be paid to partner companies is delayed due to a situation in which expenses are higher than income, and the company has continued to operate by blocking other prospective couples' down payment.
According to the court, there were 129 prospective couples who suffered damage, and the total amount of damage was 240 million won.
Separately, Mr. A was also found guilty of receiving a deposit by saying that he would guarantee a certain amount of contract if he did not pay the subcontractors or gave a deposit.
A total of 25 companies were damaged by Mr. A, and the amount of damage was said to be about 310 million won.
Mr. B, the CEO of Myung-sang, who ran a wedding consulting company with Mr. A, was also found to have participated in some charges and was sentenced to 8 months in prison.
Enlarging an image
Enlarging an image
The court pointed out, "The defendant was operating the company negligently and had financial difficulties and was paying off the receivables in the so-called 'blocking' method.
He also emphasized, "As a result of this incident, more than 100 couples suffered a lot of economic and psychological pain ahead of their marriage, which should be a happy new starting point."
The court explained that it took into account the fact that the defendant reached an agreement with some of the victims and that the actual amount of damage appeared to be less than the amount stated because many of the victims were provided with some of the contracted services.