However, with respect to Defendant 2, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(a) Fraud;

Despite the fact that the purchase price of three parcels of land located in Yangju-si in Yangju-si was 6,30,000 won, the Defendants and the victims Nonindicted 3, who engaged in the business and intended to purchase the said three parcels of land, made a false statement of the purchase price at KRW 1,00,000, and conspired to acquire from the victims the amount equivalent to the difference of the ordinary purchase price at KRW 6.3 million.

Accordingly, on September 30, 2002, the Defendants concluded a contract with the victim to purchase three lots of real estate located in the Masan-si in Yang-si in Yang-si, Yangju-si as a partnership business in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, on September 30, 2002, and concluded a false statement with the victim stating that “The purchase price of real estate is KRW 1 million per square day, so the Defendants would receive KRW 160 million transfer of ownership at KRW 160 million.”

The Defendants, by deceiving the victim as such, received the total amount of KRW 160 million on September 30, 200, including KRW 30 million on September 30, 2002, KRW 70 million on October 8, 200 of the same year, and KRW 60 million on November 14, 2002, by calculating the purchase price of the above real estate as KRW 1 million on November 15, 2002, and transferred only the ownership of KRW 160 out of the above real estate to the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to acquire 59.2 million won, which is the difference between the actual purchase fund of 160 million won and the actual purchase fund of 1.60 billion won from the victim.

(b) Embezzlement;

On September 17, 2002, the Defendants purchased three parcels of real estate in the above ○○ Logistics Complex on September 2002 from the victim non-indicted 1 and Yangju-si as a partnership business, reselled it, and concluded a contract to settle real estate investment and resale profits. On September 17, 2002, the Defendants received an amount equivalent to KRW 50 million from the victim as real estate investment money, and acquired the ownership of the said three parcels of real estate in the name of the Defendants, and kept the ownership of the said three parcels of real estate for the victim.

In the meantime, the Defendants conspired to refuse to return the said real estate investment and resale profit by asserting that the above KRW 50 million, which was received from the victim, is not a real estate investment but a simple loan, after selling the said three parcels of real estate to a third party at will after the victim’s death.

Accordingly, on April 2, 2007, the Defendants, at the same time, embezzled the real estate to a third party by refusing to return the investment money and the profits accruing from resale after selling the said three real estate to a third party at a cost of KRW 2.35 billion.5 billion.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the victim's share in the three lots of real estate in custody for the victim.

2. Defendant 1’s sole criminal conduct

On September 24, 2007, Defendant 1 requested the return of real estate investment money from the △△△△△△△ Group located in Yan-Eup’s welfare (number omitted) on the ground that the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (the age of 49) demanded the return of real estate investment money, Defendant 1 sent the victim a soup and soup office, leading the victim to the soup and soup office, leading the victim into the victim’s clothes and frys and frys, and led the victim to several times due to drinking and fry, followed up the victim’s 14-day medical treatment.

1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 1’s witness

1. The Defendants’ partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol (including Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 1’s statement)

1. Each police statement made against Nonindicted 3 and 1

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. A copy of credit card sales slip and a detailed statement of passbook transactions;

Defendants: Articles 347(1) and 30(Fraud) of the Criminal Act; Articles 355(1) and 30( point of embezzlement) of the Criminal Act; Articles 347(1) and 30( point of embezzlement) of the Criminal Act; and

Defendant 1: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 2: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances in light of the reasons for sentencing)

0. Defendant 2: Although the above good condition exists for the defendant, the defendant 1 is sentenced to the above defendant 1 as her husband, considering the fact that the defendant's her husband is sentenced to the above defendant 1 as her husband, and the defendant's misunderstanding is divided as her husband, the sentence shall be determined as ordered and the suspended execution shall be sentenced at once.

Judges Postal System