특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment is publicly announced.
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the head of the headquarters in the distribution business division of the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”). Defendant B is the head of the distribution business division of the said victim Co., Ltd., and Defendant C is the representative director of the F Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), Defendant D is the actual operator of Do retail Co., Ltd, including computers peripheral devices in the name of the wife G, and Defendant D is the actual operator of H, such as computers peripheral devices in the name of the wife.
Defendant
A, B, and the victim company from November 2014, the Defendants secured customers and sold goods from their names and funds to the sales office by purchasing goods from the purchasing office, and then distributed net profits from the relevant transactions to the sales office, the Defendants and the victim company were in the form of "one-person independent distribution system" in which the Defendants and the victim company distribute the net profits from the relevant transactions at the ratio of 6:4.
Defendant
A and B continued to operate a business in the above form, which led to the need for a separate fund, made a false statement of goods purchase and sale contract as if there was no actual transaction relationship with the transaction partner, and subsequently conspired to commit fraud by receiving the goods price from the victim company in advance and by cashing it.
A. Defendant A, B, and C’s joint criminal acts around January 18, 2016, concluded a goods supply contract with Defendant C, the representative director of Defendant A and B, at the F office located in the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City I building J, and sold KRW 344,30,00,000 to the seller, who received KRW 31,40,00 from the buyer F in total, KRW 312,40,000 (income rate of KRW 9.3%) and received KRW 31,90,000 (income rate of KRW 9.3%).
“A false statement was made to the victim company to make a prior payment for the purchase price of the goods.”
However, in fact, the Defendants thought that they will use funds for the purpose of urgent debt repayment, etc. by raising funds.