beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, for eight months, for eight months, and for six months, for each of the defendants C.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A on July 19, 2007, a sentence of one year to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for embezzlement, etc. was rendered on November 2, 2007 at the Busan District Court’s Netcheon Branch. On January 25, 2013, the judgment became final and conclusive on April 11, 2013 after having been sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Incheon District Court for fraud. Defendant B was sentenced to three years of suspension of execution on October 22, 2008 at the Jung-gu District Court for a crime of fraud, etc. and became final and conclusive on April 9, 2009.
Defendant
A is the former (State), the latter (State), the latter (State), the latter (State), the latter (State), the latter (State) director, the Defendant C is the former (State) director, and the former (State) K representative director.
The Defendants conspired to acquire money by realizing investment money while securing the scrap metal from the factory in the women's fisheries teams exclusively and supplying it to the victims H.
Defendant
A around the end of August 2006, in the course of the Magn-si distribution of L L in leisure, “J is the head of the Army and currently in the position of the Secretary-General of the Nschool of the Republic of Korea, B is the head of the Army, and C is the head of the KK KK jointly established by (ju), I director, J, B, etc. as the head of the military of J, and C is the head of the friendly group of B. These people have exclusively secured the scrap metals coming from the factory located in the Egn-si, and the entire Egn-si exclusively handled the scrap metal by the name of the O organization. If this transaction is made, it may be punished from 30 billion won to 10 billion won a year, and thus, the entire amount of the scrap metals can be purchased at a price lower than 10% of the market price at the time of investment in Section 20 million.”
However, there was no intention or ability of the I to supply all the quantities to be treated in the name of the PP Company at a discounted price without having entered into a contract with the PP Company.
The defendants deceiving the victim as such and belong to it.