beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and each of the defendants B and C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of six months.
except that from the date of this judgment.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A An employee of E Co., Ltd. established from April 2007 to June 2016 for the purpose of exporting and importing sports supplies is a person in charge of purchasing materials. Defendant B is a person who, from March 2012 to March 2015, engages in wholesale and retail business of actual containers, etc. with the trade name of F, and operates G Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of wholesale business of actual containers from March 10, 2015. Defendant C is a person who, from around September 2009 to around March 2015, engages in retail business of synthetic resin with the trade name of H.
1. On September 201, Defendants A and C conspired to acquire funds of the victim company by deducting the tax-related costs from the amount paid in excess of the actual transaction price from the transaction price paid to Defendant C, who supplied materials to the victim E Co., Ltd. on the basis of a detailed list of transactions in which the amount is more than the actual transaction price.
Accordingly, on September 9, 201, Defendant C prepared a transaction statement of KRW 570,00,000, more than the actual price, at H offices located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan-si, and submitted it to the victim company office in Yongsan-gu, Busan-si, and Defendant A confirmed that the transaction statement was a transaction statement prepared in a normal manner and presented it to the employee in charge of expenditure of the above company.
As such, the Defendants deceiving the employees in charge of expenditure of the victim company, and have been transferred from the victim company to the account in the name of Defendant C the amount of 570,000 won is more than the actual transaction price in the name of the victim company at that time.
The Defendants, as well as the Defendants, have claimed an excessive amount of transaction with the victim company over 67 times as shown in the attached Table 1 in the same manner during the period from around that time to February 25, 2016.