사기등
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for robbery by the Seoul High Court on April 23, 1996, and the sentence was finalized, and is currently serving in the same correctional institution E at the same time, and Defendant B is a paper bank manufacturer who entered into an entrustment contract with the purport that Defendant B was provided with prisons and prisoners from the Andong school and paid for public service in return.
A. The Defendants, on January 2012, 2012, using the fact that the teachers in charge of the workplace belonging to the same correctional institution affiliated with the inner prison E working place located in the Ansan-si, Ansan-si, Dong-si, Dong-si, 4380-23 failed to properly verify the quantity of the goods delivered in accordance with the consignment contract, deemed that the quantity of the goods delivered is less than the goods actually produced and released to the competent correctional officer, and that Defendant B reduced the amount of the goods delivered to the victim in accordance with the quantity of the goods released to the Republic of Korea and then sought to divide the profits therefrom.
Defendant
A From January 1, 2012 to around the 31st day of the same month, 15,00 paper bags 15,00 created at the work site of the Ansan Prison E from January 1, 2012, and added 40,000 paper bags 40,00 paper bags to take part in the paper-based production work, and deducted them. It shall be reported to the competent correctional officer that the actual amount of 55,000 paper bags is released. Defendant B did not pay the amount of 1,100 won equivalent to 5,00 paper shipped out of the shipment volume of goods, thereby deceiving the competent correctional officer to gain the same amount of property gains from that time to December 2, 2013, and by failing to pay the same amount of money as KRW 23,280,000 for total property gains from the correctional officer by deceiving the correctional officer in charge, such as the statement in Attached Table 1 from that time to December 2013.
As a result, the Defendants conspired with the competent prison officer to induce the victim.