beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, and by imprisonment for six months, respectively.
However, this judgment is delivered to Defendant A.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant B, on June 10, 2014, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months in the Daejeon District Court for special larceny, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on the 18th of the same month, and is currently under suspended sentence.
Criminal facts
Defendants and G made a false statement to the effect that “self-employed persons are employees of a lending company and need performance. The performance shall only be increased on the face of the loan received by four, and the loan shall be paid immediately and shall not be damaged.” The Defendants and G conspired to receive the loan from the “Gu” and receive the loan from the “Gu.”
Defendant
A colored the head of the Gu, and Defendant B obtained an authorized certificate in the name of the “ho-gu” that received the loan, and Defendant A, G and the “ho-gu” were transferred to the lending company, and G were given overall instructions and shared the role of distributing the loan granted from the “ho-gu”.
1. Joint criminal conduct between the Defendants and G
A. On February 3, 2015, Defendant A committed the crime of February 3, 2015, at the Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon: “A attracts customers while working for a lending company, collects money from the clients who received the loan, and deposits it to the company. It is a problem with business performance. It receives a loan throughout the fact that business performance is low. On the other hand, I would give KRW 500,000 to the victim in return for immediate repayment of the money received from the company.” On the other hand, G and Defendant B expressed that “I want to obtain a loan from the lending company to the maximum extent possible, and I would ask the victim whether I will obtain a loan to the maximum extent possible,” while inducing the victim to apply for the loan.
However, Defendant A was not an employee of the lending company, and Defendants and G did not receive any loan from the victim due to no particular income.