Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months.

except that from the date of this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

[2014 Highest 2370 / Defendant B agreed to pay a bill with the amount of 50% of the settlement on the payment date after obtaining a discount from Defendant A in consultation with Defendant A, while Defendant B was seeking to provide a loan with a discount from Defendant A’s bank under the name of Defendant C, as if there were a normal transactional relationship with Defendant A (State)J operated by Defendant A, with the proposal of Defendant C, and the promissory note under the name of Defendant A was made under the name of Defendant A, with a discount from Defendant A’s bank, to use 50% of the discount from each of the discount from each of the discounts from Defendant A, and to bear 50% of the settlement amount on the payment date. Defendant C agreed to receive a payment from Defendant B and Defendant A for a discount from Defendant A.

Defendant

B On September 25, 2013, in accordance with the agreement, at the (ju) J office located in K in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Defendant A’s operation on September 25, 2013, a chapter 1 of Promissory Notes stating, “The check number L, face value 181,50,000 (Won 181,50,000),” written in the name of (ju), “the check number L, face value 181,50,000 won (Won 15,50,000),” “the date of issuance, September 25, 2013,” and “the check number M, face value 15,50,000 won (Won 115,50,000), and the date of issuance, September 11, 2014.”

1. Joint crimes committed by the Defendants

A. On September 26, 2013, Defendant A, pursuant to the above agreement, committed fraud against the victim pre-victim bank, issued a standard subcontract agreement for construction work, the account statement of the amount of tax issued I, etc., to the employees of the bank in the lock room of the bank prior to the victim in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, changed the amount of promissory notes at a discount of the amount of KRW 181,500,000 per face value to the employees of the bank at the lock room of the bank prior to the victim in Songpa-gu, Seoul.

However, the facts are as follows: (a) Defendant B and Defendant A prepare a standard subcontract agreement for construction works with false content for the purpose of discount of promissory notes; and (b) Defendant B only issued a false tax invoice, and there was no actual transaction between the J and ( state) I.

Defendant

A shall be from the North Bank before the victim on September 2013.