beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months and by imprisonment for six months.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[criminal records] Defendant A was sentenced to five years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Incheon District Court on April 15, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 24, 2015. Defendant B was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Suwon District Court on December 21, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 19, 2017.
[2] The Defendants: (a) from around 2006 to around 2006, when Defendant A invested in early funds, such as deposit money, etc., they borrowed funds from Defendant B; and (b) Defendant A was in charge of customer counseling, fund management, etc.; and (c) Defendant B operated weddings in charge of management and business of occupant enterprises.
1. The Defendants’ joint crime committed from April 2014 to April 2014 was operated together with “Fwa Holdings” located in the Gu E during the period of Ansan. Defendant B, around April 20, 2014, accepted the payment from the former supplier of the goods in the same way as “the former supplier of the goods”. The payment will be made two weeks after the supply of the goods.
Defendant A was issued with the meat supplied by the injured party as follows:
However, in fact, the Defendants started to operate a business with only KRW 70 million out of the lease deposit of KRW 70 million. From September 2008 to May 201, 201, the Defendant’s husband of the Defendant, in the name of his husband, “J-gu,” and did not pay the purchase price of goods equivalent to KRW 359 million in total. From June 201 to December 201, the Defendant’s mother of the Bupyeong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City operating the “M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Mk” in the name of the Defendant’s mother of the Defendant from June 2012 to December 2013, it was unreasonable to receive KRW 30 million under the name of his/her investment, such as not returning, and thus, it was unlikely that the remainder of the deposit was paid because the obligation was accumulated without any other property. Thus, even if the Defendant was supplied with the land from the damaged person, the said article was supplied.