beta
Text
1. Defendant A andO shall be sentenced to two years of imprisonment, Defendant B, C, D, E, E, F, H, I, J, K, M, N, Q, and T in six months of imprisonment.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
"2013, 428"
1. Defendant A and BA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BA”) refers to “services for building and providing networks and for collecting and keeping sales slips by conveying information on settlement of credit cards, cash receipts, etc. on credit card companies or the National Tax Service through delivery of credit card companies or cash receipts, etc. to deal with affairs such as credit card inquiries, settlement approval, and settlement of payments.”
(hereinafter the same shall apply)
As an enterprise, Defendant A is a person who works for a corporate team, etc. of BA from April 200 to September 2012 and was in charge of managing franchise store business and agency, etc., and Defendant B is a person who was in fact operating BB and BC from January 2007 to the agency of BA.
Around November 2006, Defendant A, in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) related to BD, changed the name of the convenience store to BF while changing it to BE on June 2012, 2012, Defendant A provided money and valuables to BG, the head of the computerized headquarters of BD, who helps to enter into a bD service contract.
Accordingly, Defendant A prepared a letter related to BD contract, on the ground of a false business agency of BH, on the ground that BH, made a false statement that “BH would pay KRW 25 won per credit card approval to BH as commission,” as if the BH would arrange the conclusion of the contract even though it did not play any role in connection with the conclusion of the BD service contract, and made it possible to pay BH fees with the approval of the superior, and then deliver part of the amount to BG.
After that, the ratio of the amount granted to BG in preparation for the amount deposited from BA to BH due to the increase in the number of transactions of BD, and in such case, the defendant who is an employee of BA, is false in relation to BD.