beta
Text
1. Defendant A’s imprisonment for a crime set forth in paragraph 1 of the 2014 High 396 Incident 2014, 2014 High 396 Case No. 2.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A on August 12, 2010, the Seoul High Court was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud and two years of suspended execution, and the judgment was finalized on August 20, 2010.
Defendant
B On August 10, 2012, the Seoul Northern District Court was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court on February 14, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 14, 2013, and completed the execution of the sentence on March 29, 2013.
Defendant A, “2014 High 396, 2016,” used a loan brokerage company in the second floor of Q buildings in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to externally serve as the president of the company, and ordered S to engage in a loan-related work, and is a person acting as a loan broker for the company, and S used a representative of the company externally as a loan broker for the company.
Defendant
A and S intended to obtain a loan fee by using transaction practices that pre-paid the loan fee prior to the receipt of a loan by a person who needs a large amount of funds to take over a company, and if S does so, S intended to obtain a large amount of loan, the Defendant intended to obtain a loan by emphasizing that there is a close relationship with the people who have influence on the bond market. After S received a large amount of fee from a person who wants to obtain a loan first, S first received a large amount of fee from the person who wants to obtain the loan, and then S did not intend to obtain a loan by displaying the money that S would take the loan first at the time of the agreed loan, and by displaying the money that S would take the loan from the person who wants to obtain the loan, it did not cause any negligence or responsibility for the person who wants to obtain the loan
1. On April 20, 2010, Defendant A and S made a false statement to the victim T and U, who found the above office in order to raise funds for corporate acquisition at the said R office, stating that “When advance payment of KRW 500 million for corporate acquisition is made, Defendant A and S would arrange for a loan of KRW 18 billion for the necessary corporate acquisition fund by April 22, 2010.”
However, the defendant A and the defendant A.