However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the Defendants are sentenced to punishment.

Defendant

A, as the representative director of C(hereinafter referred to as “C”) established for trucking transport business, etc., Defendant B was the executive director, and D was the chief of EM, the transportation truster company’s physical color, contractual terms, and contract conclusion business.

In collusion with the above D, around June 2015, the Defendants promised E, F, and G to arrange H transport services, sold the freight vehicle at the price of KRW 110 million for each of the 100,000,000,000, but the contract with H was not entered into for about 8 months, and thus, the Defendants demanded refund from the above 3 persons, which led to the re-sale of the freight vehicle sold to E to a third party, to raise the refund fund as the sale price.

On February 2, 2016, the Defendants posted an advertisement stating that “K may obtain KRW 14 million from monthly net income, if he/she works for H,” on the Internet website at the C Office located in the Itel of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul). On February 4, 2016, the Defendants falsely stated that “The victims LA (the age of 62) who reported the above advertisement and found it was 135 million won from the truck sales price, who was 25 tons of the truck sales price and run the H transport service that would obtain KRW 14 million from the monthly net income,” and that “The Defendants would provide H transport service that would obtain KRW 14 million from the truck.”

However, the Defendants did not have a direct contact with H. In fact, around June 2015, the Defendants promised to enter into a transport contract with H, and sold three cargo vehicles, but were demanded from the buyers for about 8 months due to the failure to carry out the said transport contract. In addition, when the Defendants received the sale price from the victims due to the lack of particular payment capacity, most of them were immediately planned to be appropriated for the above refund, and even if they received the sale price from the victims, they did not have any intent or ability to provide H transport services.

On February 5, 2016, Defendants deceiving the victim as such and let the victim purchase price for the truck.