Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for six months, each of the defendants B.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B on March 21, 2019, the Gwangju District Court was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and 2 years of suspended sentence, and the above sentence was finalized on March 29, 2019.

"2018 Highest 5674"

1. Defendant A

A. On August 22, 2016, the Defendant, on August 22, 2016, made a false statement to the effect that “A person shall pay off money if he/she lends money to the victim C,” by making a phone call to the victim C at a Buddhist area not exceeding Incheon.”

However, at the time of borrowing the above money, the Defendant had no intention or ability to repay the money even after borrowing the money, since the Defendant was in a state where there is no particular interest in the living environment, the Defendant purchased the land in the Hongcheon-do, and appropriated the down payment for the purchase of the land from the land in the process of carrying out the Hetean Project, and was in a state where he was liable to pay more than KRW 70 million, including the down payment repayment obligation.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 10 million won from the victim to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant’s wife on the same day.

B. On September 1, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, around September 1, 2016, the Defendant would receive a loan from the victim C and the victim in the vicinity of the Mode-dong, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, to the effect that the Defendant would immediately repay the loan to the Plaintiff as the name of the land in need of money is transferred due to the projects that run in Hongcheon, Gangwon-do.

However, in the process of purchasing the above red land, it was difficult to procure the down payment of KRW 50 million and paid from the land buyer. Since the seller of the above land had already received a loan of KRW 1.4 billion from the bank by offering the above land as collateral, it is impossible to obtain the additional loan as collateral, and thus, there was no intention or ability to repay the above money even if it was borrowed.

The Defendant is as above.