A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a D station in the net City C.

The Defendant, in return for the fixed use of the said gas station by E, etc., in which the borrower of the cargo vehicle, such as E, who is traded in the said gas station, paid only a part of the payment amount, shall make a false calculation by making up for about 20% or 30% of the actual transaction price, or by making a false credit card sales slip under the presumption that the actual transaction was made even though there was no fact that, in fact, there was no limited liability, the Defendant would make a false transaction as if the actual transaction was made, and directly deliver or transfer the money equivalent to the difference to the borrower of the cargo, and the borrower recruited to receive the fuel subsidy from each local government through the aforementioned false credit card transaction.

On January 4, 2010, the Defendant, even though he did not actually pay the FF truck owned by E at the above D gas station, received by means of the G driver’s welfare card as if he had been falsely paid the amount equivalent to KRW 391 liter and the market price of KRW 515,000 with the G driver’s welfare card, and returned the amount calculated by deducting 10% of the false amount of value-added tax as the value-added tax, and E had the new card company claim 120,132, a fuel subsidy for the above liquor amount to the Daejeon Peong-gu World Trade Office, thereby having the victim who was unaware of the fact obtain economic benefits to avoid the payment of the above fuel subsidy to the new card company, which is equivalent to the above fuel subsidy.

From around that time to February 29, 2012, the Defendant conspired with the respective cargo owners, including E, to make a false credit card transaction over 608 times as shown in the list of offenses, and thus, the Defendant had the respective local governments of the victim pay a total of 30,810,39 won, and then the said cargo owners acquired the pecuniary benefit of the same amount.