Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants are pro-friendly, and Defendant A is the representative director of the “(State)D”, who is the construction machinery rental business entity in the Gu and America, and Defendant B served as the managing director of the said company.

On January 2013, the Defendants conspiredd to acquire money from the victim F, the representative director of the “E” who has been engaged in transactions with the said company by using false tax invoices, such as employees’ personnel expenses, construction machinery installments, oil payments, etc., and not paying them properly.

Defendant

B around January 18, 2013, by sending a telephone to the victim on the phone, the Defendant requested that “it is difficult to process the data purchased by our company too much and excessive, and that it is in the G Hospital because it is difficult for the president to process it. If the president receives the data of purchase, he would receive the data of purchase later, he would receive the data of purchase later, and later receive the data of purchase.” On the 24th of the same month, the Defendant made the victim bear the purchase price and tax invoice of KRW 40,920,000, the supply of the data of KRW 36,630,000,000, and the Defendant A took the phone to the victim on the 24th of the same month, with the victim’s phone “It is difficult for our company to use them as the data of purchase, because it is difficult for our company to receive the data of purchase and tax invoice only once.”

After that, on the 28th day of the same month, Defendant B made a false statement to the victim that “on the face of remitting the amount of KRW 77,550,000,000 on the tax invoice issued as the result of the need for evidence and the basis for purchase data, Defendant B made a false statement to the victim that “I will make a second payment to the victim immediately after the handling of the business,” and Defendant A again made a phone call on the same day to the victim and return it to the victim within 2 hours as the ground for the transaction is required due to the request of Dong-in.”

However, the Defendants received the said money from the employees.