사기
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Punishment of the crime
The facts charged in this case are amended as stated in the facts charged to the extent that it is not likely to substantially disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his defense right.
The Defendant is a person who actually runs a stock company C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) that engages in food materials trade business from August 2, 2011 to November 28, 2016 in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
When the Defendant imports goods issued with a credit, the issuing financial institution first pays the import price to an overseas exporter, and the Defendant used the structure to help the bank pay for the imported goods later within the time limit set by the financial institution (three to nine months) to lend the credit to an enterprise which is difficult to obtain the credit from the financial institution because of low credit rating, and instead, to assist the lending company to import the goods for its personal purposes, such as business funds, etc., the Defendant received the credit amount in advance from the lending company, and used it for the personal purposes, such as business funds, etc., and the financial institution
On July 27, 2016, the Defendant entered into an agreement with E and E, which came to know of D’s introduction at C Office, on the import of freezing from G Co., Ltd. (G, hereinafter “G”), instead of China, entered into an agreement with C to lend L/C (credit) opened from financial institutions. The terms and conditions of the agreement agreed to deposit 30% of the down payment on the open date of the credit with D and to transfer 70% of the remainder to C corporate account after the completion of customs clearance after the import goods arrive in Korea.
The Defendant, rather than using the above credit, lent the above credit to F to import freezings from G in accordance with the above agreement with F, and was thought to have used F as personal debt repayment and business fund. However, the Defendant was thought to have borrowed the credit in advance and used F to pay the revenue from F in advance, but the financial institution was from China.