Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and for one year and two months, respectively.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On December 5, 2016, Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on the six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act at the Busan District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 9, 2017.

[Criminal facts]

1. Defendant B is a person running a limited company E with the purpose of oil storage business in Pyeongtaek-si D, A is the representative director of F Co., Ltd. F for the purpose of marine transportation in Incheon, and the victim C is a person running a corporation H with the purpose of cleaning the oil hold of a ship for the oil hold cleaning business in Pyeongtaek-si G or collecting pollutants generated from a ship or marine facility.

The Defendant received a financing bill from A and received it at a discount, and expressed a mind to raise the financial resources for the settlement of the financing bill issued by F, a stock company, the maturity of which comes.

A. On October 14, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim at the H office located in Pyeongtaek-si G on October 14, 2016, stating that “F would make payment without a mold for the due date, if it is the company with eight large vessels or less at the discount of the F bill issued by the Defendant, i.e., the company with eight large vessels, and would pay without a mold for the due date.”

However, in fact, the above bill was borrowed from F, and the financial condition of F, a corporation F, aggravated, thereby preventing the existing issuance of the bill at discount, and the Defendant was also aware of all such circumstances, and the Defendant had to prevent the Defendant from paying the bill at a discount since he was under the circumstances that the Defendant had to avoid the responsibility of the Defendant when he was given a discount on F, and even if the bill was discounted by the injured party, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the bill at the due date.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from the injured party, is the FF financing bill (in the face value of 50,000,000).