beta
Text
A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months, and a person who is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
On February 5, 2010, A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for fraud at the District Court of the Republic of Korea on the same day, and the above judgment was finalized on the same day, and was released on January 28, 201, and the parole period expired on April 15, 201.
(2013 Highest 854)
1. Around August 15, 2007, the Defendant entered into a tax credit contract with the victim C (e.g., 50 years of age) and the Defendant on the first floor Esa in the Gyeonggi-si, the first floor Esa in which the Defendant actually owned at the private coffee shop in Dongjak-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and transferred KRW 10,000,000 to the account of Non-Indicted F’s New Training Branch in the name of the deposit for the tax credit, and the amount of KRW 70,00,000 for the 16.70,000,000 for the same month;
9.3.Woman 30,000,000 won for the same year; and
9.4.10,000,000 won for the same year; and
9.A transfer of KRW 10,000,000 to each of the above F accounts on or around 19.
However, at the time of taking over the above E-Ba, the Defendant was actually liable for the purchase price of goods equivalent to KRW 300,000,000 for the part of the country of the corporation, and the Defendant was unable to obtain a normal loan from the financial institution under the name of the Defendant because he was in bad credit, and acquired the above E-Ba or building by borrowing KRW 480,000 from the financial institution, which was not possible to obtain a normal loan from the financial institution under the name of the Defendant. The Defendant borrowed the above E-Ba or building for late payment damages due to the delay of the purchase price of the above E-Ba or building from the person who was in bad credit and paid KRW 110,00,000 for the above E-Ba or building as the purchase price of the above E-Ba or building under the pretext of borrowing the loan, and even if the Defendant did not obtain the loan or remodeling from the financial institution, the Defendant actually raised the purchase price of the E-Sa or building, even if it was unclear or unclear from the financial institution.