A A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4 million, by a fine of KRW 2 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6 million.

[criminal record] On February 16, 2005, Defendant C was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. in support of Sungnam branch of Suwon District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence in Daejeon District Court on March 13, 2006.

[2] The Defendants prepared a false lease agreement with Defendant A as lessee even though there is no effective lease agreement between Defendant E and Defendant A, and conspired to borrow KRW 30 million from Defendant G as collateral. The Defendants conspired to borrow KRW 30 million from the victim’s G as collateral.

Defendant

On February 24, 2008, A, B, and H entered into a false lease agreement with the lessor as to the above 501 at the J coffee shop located in Gui-si I, Gui-si, and around 200,000 won, and the Defendant C knew of the above circumstances, upon the recognition of the above circumstances, was transferred KRW 2,80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the account of the Defendant A, excluding the first line and 1.2 million won, to the Korean bank account of the Defendant A, on the same day.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to attract the victim to receive the goods.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. A detailed statement of transfer transactions, a certificate of borrowing, a lease contract, a copy of the passbook, and a written statement;

1. Previous convictions: Inquiries about criminal history and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification as to whether a C repeated crime is committed);

1. Relevant legal provisions and the Defendants’ choice of punishment regarding criminal facts: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; the choice of fines (the Defendants, in collusion to acquire their respective interests, committed deception as to the loan of property to be provided as security in a manner of forging a document regarding the property to be provided as security; and the Defendants did not pay damages for a long time. Thus, the nature of the instant crime is not weak.

(b).