A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment for eight months.

However, between two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

A is a person who operated a “E restaurant” on the Daejeon Jung-gu D and the second floor, and Defendant B is a person who operated the “E” on the F of Daejeon-gu and the first basement.

Defendant

A around September 27, 2016, around the same day, after registering the above E restaurant as a simplified taxable person, entered into a contract of credit card member stores at that time, and then operating the restaurant, the Defendant B, a general taxable person, requested that “a loan from the name of the credit card member stores because there are many taxes.”

Accordingly, Defendant A allowed Defendant B to use the name of the restaurant operator E around the end of December 2016. From January 1, 2017 to July 1, 2017, Defendant B traded credit card sales amounting to KRW 160,575,000 in total from the “E” point of view by using a wireless credit card settlement device registered in the name of the restaurant to the early police officer.

Accordingly, Defendant A lent the name of credit card member store to another person, and Defendant B used the name of other credit card member stores to make credit card transactions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Investigation report (report on confirmation of the terminal details of cards used by suspects B);

1. A written accusation;

1. As a result of inquiry into a copy of the certificate of business registration, a copy of the certificate of business registration, a copy of the certificate of business registration, a copy of the business report, a copy of the general tax-exempt value, a copy of the current status of establishment of a credit card merchant's meeting,

1. Relevant Article 70 (4) 6, Article 19 (5) 4 (Defendant A), Article 70 (3) 3, and Article 19 (5) 3 (2) and Article 19 (5) 3 (B) of the Act on Business of Financial Services Specializing in Extension of the Punishment of Specific Crimes and Specialized in Extension of the Punishment of Specific Crimes and Selection of Imprisonment;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the scope of crimes for the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) is not small.

However, the defendants are against the crime, and the defendants B paid in full the delinquent taxes, and they are also abolished or expected to be disposed of.

Defendant

A is only a fine penalty due to the instant case, and Defendant B is only a defendant.