A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and for eight months, respectively.

Defendant

B On February 18, 2016, the same year as he/she was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on February 18, 2016.

7. 5. The judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant

B in borrowing money from the victim E, the victim asked the defendant A to be a public official and to misrepresent himself to the public official, who is the birth village of the defendant A as a public official when the victim requested the guarantor, and the defendant A accepted it.

On October 1, 2014, the Defendants are required to pay money to the victims in the G notary public office of the F Building G in the city of Gongju on October 1, 2014, and Defendant B is required to pay money to the victims for the G notary public office of the F Building in the city of Si.

The loan of KRW 30 million is to pay KRW 50 million until November 1, 2014, which is after the month.

A, a Easter, is a public official guarantee, and a process certificate is also prepared in A's name.

Defendant A is a public official working for the Sejong Complex, who is a public official in charge of the Sejong Complex, who immediately retires and engages in the business of the deceased. The Defendant A will be responsible for performing an act by putting the name named as “the construction of the facilities of the government Sejong Complex” on the part of the victim.

B was a white-brut father before the towing, and now there is a big difficulty in the pre-Seoul metropolitan business, but it has been well known.

In addition, 5 billion won property is 5 billion won, and the property has been returned in the name of the wife because it is too much difficult to find it during that period.

2. The term “assumed.”

However, in fact, Defendant A is an employee of the facility management company H of the government-type office building and is not a public official, even if the Defendants borrowed money from the damaged party, they did not have any idea to use it for the siren business, and Defendant B was a bad credit holder and Defendant A did not have any intent or ability to pay KRW 50 million in one month even if he borrowed money from the injured party due to no particular property other than the income of KRW 1.8 million per month.

In the end, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim and are in the same position.