Defendant

B Imprisonment for 4 months, Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of 3,000,000 won, respectively.

However, the defendant B.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant B is a person who engages in the motor vehicle trade and repair business under the trade name of “A with limited liability” in the former North Korea-gun C.

No credit card merchant shall lend the name of a credit card merchant to any third party.

Nevertheless, the Defendant established a credit card merchant around April 2017, and thereafter, from around that time to July 5, 2017, the Defendant lent credit card terminals to E operating a “D limited company” that purchased vehicles from the said “D” company from the said “D” company to ensure that credit card transactions worth KRW 8,850,000 are conducted.

2. The Defendant A, a representative of the Defendant, committed the same offense as that of the Defendant’s business as that of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

[Judgment]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Investigation report (the period of crime and details of sales);

1. Accusation against violators of the Act on Financial Business Specializing in Credit, and application of judgment statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

(a) Defendant B: Articles 70(4)6 and 19(5)4 of the Act on Financial Business Specializing in Credit, and the choice of imprisonment;

(b) Defendant Limited Company A: Articles 71, 70(4)6, and 19(5)4 of the Act on Financial Business Specializing in Credit.

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1241, Apr. 1, 200

1. The community service order (defendant B) under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendants’ grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Defendant A”) are favorable to the Defendants, such as the fact that the Defendants acknowledged the instant facts charged and expressed the intent of reflectivity against the mistake. However, in the instant case, Defendant B’s violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Business by lending the name of a credit card merchant of a corporation to E while substantially operating the limited company A, thereby facilitating various illegal acts, such as the act of receiving similarity in E, and Defendant B is the same.