Defendant 1 and one other

Kim Jong-hwan (prosecution), Choi Jin-jin (public trial)

Attorney Park Jong-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for four months and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

To order Defendant 2 to be put on probation.

To order Defendant 2 to provide community service for 200 hours.

On January 2012, Defendant 2 obtained the consent of Defendant 1, 2012, stating that “A certified judicial scrivener, if any, has a person who needs money through the certified judicial scrivener, had him make a pre-paid person make a pre-paid transaction with him, and then agreed with Defendant 2, who is employed as the head of the office at the office of the certified judicial scrivener in △△△△△, by receiving a proposal from Defendant 1, who is “a person who has a pre-paid person, who has a pre-paid person receive a pre-paid card, a pre-paid person who has a pre-paid person receive funds after deducting the fee from the payment.” In addition, Defendant 2 offered to Defendant 1, who is the head of the office of the certified judicial scrivener in the office of the certified judicial scrivener in △△△△△, to request the clients to pay related taxes, such as acquisition tax, registration tax, etc., and made a cash payment to the person in need of money and divided the fee.” The Defendants offered to Defendant 2 in sequence by dividing the fee corresponding to 12% of settlement amount.

On August 20, 2013, the person who was named in name was required to make a loan to Nonindicted 1, who was in need of the fund, through Defendant 2, obtained the local tax payment information from Nonindicted 2, the client of the judicial scrivener office in order to make payment by credit card from Defendant 1 through Defendant 2, and make payment for the above local tax payment of KRW 1,393,000,000 won with the card of Nonindicted 1,3930,000 won with a new card, KRW 2,430,000 won, and KRW 51,564,950, which was paid by Nonindicted 2, around that time, Defendant 1 collected his fee from Nonindicted 2 and delivered the remainder to Defendant 2, Defendant 2 offered his fee to the person who was named in name, and Defendant 1 provided the remainder of money to Nonindicted 1,620,000 won.

In addition, from October 24, 2012 to December 6, 2013, the Defendants and the persons who received false name cards provide 222,521,378 won in total to the above-mentioned self-financial investors and fee is imposed by paying 40 local taxes among the persons who requested the payment of 40 local taxes by using the card as shown in the attached list of crimes.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with the bromoer name in collusion, thereby making a credit card transaction by pretending to sell goods or provide services, or in excess of the actual sales amount, or making another person make a financing by acting on behalf of the Defendants.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 3

1. Investigation report (to attach data on replies related to the payment of local taxes);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 70 (2) 2 (a) of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. Probation and community service order;

Defendant 2: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

The crime of this case is committed in collusion with the defendants by replacing local taxes, etc. to be paid in cash with another person's credit card and collecting fees, and the fact that the number of the crimes and the amount are not significant is disadvantageous, and the fact that the defendants are recognized to commit the crime shall be considered as favorable circumstances.

As to Defendant 1, Defendant 2 was involved in the instant crime according to the proposal of Defendant 2, the fact that Defendant did not have any record of the crime except for punishment for one time due to drinking driving, and that Defendant supported his family. However, there is a favorable circumstance for Defendant 1 to perform the core role of the instant crime by providing information on the persons who entrusted local taxes, etc. to a certified judicial scrivener office working for him, and the amount of profit was also not significant, and information provided by the Defendant is information acquired as an employee of a certified judicial scrivener office and is disadvantageous to the nature of the crime. Considering the unfavorable circumstances, if Defendant is sentenced to a suspended sentence or higher, it is inevitable to sentence imprisonment with prison labor along with a suspended sentence, even if

Defendant 2 has been sentenced to suspended sentence due to the same crime of similar multiple laws, and Defendant 1 has been proposed to commit a crime first. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Defendant 2 took advantage of the benefit exceeding 1-2% of the credit card payment amount that Defendant 2 recognized by himself.

In addition, in full view of the circumstances that led to the commission of the crime, the age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances of the crime, the result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined in accordance with Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

[Attachment]

Judge Full-time