beta
Text
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.
However, with respect to Defendant B, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant B was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud at the Daegu District Court on January 23, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 30, 2014.
Defendant A is a person who actually operated the Construction Machinery Transport Business Association between Defendant B and his/her husband and wife.
In collusion with the Defendants, around May 29, 2012, at the cafeteria-dong, Daegu-gu, Incheon-dong, the Defendant B was a bad credit holder due to the delinquency in payment of the credit card price. Defendant A, around 2007, was liable for value-added tax of 200 million won or more due to E’s failure to pay the credit card price, and even if he was given a loan under the name of another person due to the lack of specific property, he/she did not have the intent or ability to repay the loan even if he/she was given a loan under the name of another person, the victim F would have the Defendant repaid the loan if he/she would have borrowed the vehicle under the name of another person to purchase the vehicle within six months, and transfer the name to another person within six months.” The victim made the victim F to obtain a total of KRW 300,400,000,000 from Ajuk Capital Co.,, Ltd. on May 31, 2012.
Defendant A is a person who actually operated construction machinery transportation chain E between Defendant B and his/her husband.
The Defendants conspired and conspired on August 30, 2013 at the 'K coffee shop' in the Daegu-gu J, Daegu-gu, and the fact was that Defendant B was a bad credit holder due to the overdue credit card payment during the E operation process. Defendant A bears a debt of 200 million won or more due to E’s failure to pay the value-added tax around 2007, and Defendant A bears a debt of 200 million won or more due to E’s failure to pay the value-added tax, and obtained a loan under another person’s name even if there is no particular property, the Defendants did not have an intent or ability to repay the loan.