Text
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.
However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, the defendants are above two years from the date of the final judgment.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[Attachment with criminal history, Defendant A was sentenced to a two-year sentence of imprisonment for fraud at the Incheon District Court on January 22, 2015, and became final and conclusive on February 19, 2016 (Seoul District Court Decision 6879, 6875, 2015, Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1477). On June 9, 2016, Defendant A was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on October 7, 2016 [the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 senior 7205,5025 (Joint), and from February 10, 2016 to December 28, 2017, Defendant B acquired shares from the Seoul Central District Court from 2015 to 204, and jointly acquired shares from the Seoul Central District Court from 30% up to 2010 to 204, respectively]
Defendants conspired, around October 9, 2013, on the 4th floor of the above “K” Holdings, and around October 9, 2013, the Defendants are large companies with the volume of “M” personnel N in the “M” operation of L to the extent of KRW 80,000,000 for the delivery of fishery products every month.
The level of 100 million won will not cover and begin;
By engaging in the supply transaction with the trading hole in Korea, the price for the supply of fishery products from the time when the amount of KRW 100 million exceeds KRW 100,000 on the face of the week, and the above KRW 100,000,000 per month from the time of the payment was made by adding KRW 10,000 per month.
However, the Defendants, without obtaining permission for change of the purpose of use, illegally operated the futures trading hole, were subject to a compulsory payment of KRW 400 million around August 2013, and due to the lack of normal operation, the Defendants were unable to pay the amount equivalent to KRW 150 million paid to “O”, which is an existing fishery products supplier, for several months, and there was no intention or ability to pay the amount normally as agreed upon even if they were to receive the fishery products from the damaged person.
Nevertheless, the Defendants are identical to this.