However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

Defendant

B is the majority shareholder of F Co., Ltd., and the defendant A is the representative director of the above company.

The Defendants submitted a false tax invoice and electronic bill to the above bank and conspired to use them to repay Defendant A’s obligations upon receiving the purchase fund loan in the name of the F Company F.

Accordingly, at around November 25, 2014, Defendant B received a tax invoice equivalent to KRW 33 million in the name of H Co., Ltd. in the name of H Co., Ltd. upon request from H Co., Ltd. upon request from H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I would like to issue tax invoices as if necessary to get loans from our bank,” and Defendant B issued one copy of the electronic bill in the name of H Co., Ltd. under the name of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and filed an application for the above tax invoice and electronic bill at the lower point of the victim’s bank.

However, fact was that H Co., Ltd. did not actually purchase parts from H Co., Ltd., and the purpose of Defendant A was not to use the purchase fund as part price, but to return the purchase fund from H Co., Ltd. and to repay Defendant A’s personal debt.

Nevertheless, on November 26, 2014, the Defendants were provided with KRW 33 million as a loan for purchasing funds, by pretending to have actually been provided with funds to pay for parts.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to obtain a loan from the victim bank.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. The defendant B's partial statement

1. In particular, the statement of part of the suspect interrogation protocol on Defendant B to the prosecution: Defendant A received a loan from the Korean bank in order to recover the credit, and the account statement of tax needs to be made.