Text
[Defendant A] The defendant is innocent. The summary of the judgment against the defendant is publicly notified.
[Defendant B] The Defendant is innocent.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[Judgment of the court below] The defendant C is the actual operator of the LUB, which is the representative director B of the LUB, and as the financial situation worsens and the liabilities increased, the defendant C separately established and operated H(the representative director A of the title) of the LA.
In fact, G and H are only different entities, and the location of the place of business and the number of human members are substantially the same.
[criminal contents] The Defendant sent an order form, etc. with H trade name, etc., to the effect that, through B, the Defendant would pay the victim's damage amount to K, the representative of the JUUUU in the victim's damage resolution office around December 2012, in the victim's damage resolution office, to K, who is the representative of the JUUUU in the dispute resolution office, at the beginning of the following month.
However, Aluminium was expected to be used by Aluminium G, while it was difficult for Aluminium G to pay a monthly wage to its employees at the time of the aggravation of the financial situation, and the debt increase. The Linininium also was established in order to replace the trade name of Aluminium G, and the two companies did not have any intent or ability to pay the price even if Aluminium is supplied from the victim.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, through deceiving the victim, was supplied with alkinum equivalent to KRW 6,731,560 from December 27, 2012 to March 25, 2013 and acquired alkinum by defrauded.
Summary of Evidence
1. Each legal statement of a witness A and B;
1. The suspect examination protocol of C and A by each prosecutor;
1. The police statement of K;
1. A written order and a statement of transactions;
1. Each investigation report (the defendant argues that he is not the actual operator of the Dispute Settlement Bank G or the Dispute Settlement Bank H, and there was no criminal intent to commit deception or deception in light of the goods-price claim against the Chinese customer in the Dispute Settlement Bank G. However, according to the evidence above, the defendant can be fully recognized as the actual operator (However, there is a high possibility that the defendant was operated together with the Dong L of the defendant, and the relation, operator, the background and process of establishment, and the goods-supply place.