A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment for six months.

Defendant

A on February 21, 2011, after being sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for fraud at the Chuncheon District Court, on March 1, 2011, the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 1, 201, and on May 30, 2014, Defendant B was sentenced to a three-year imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul East East District Court for fraud, etc. and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 10, 2014.

Defendant

A is the actual president of the LA which operates vending machine wholesale and siren consignment management business, and the defendant B is the auditor of the LAD who is in charge of the business such as the recruitment of investors.

In collusion with the Defendants, at the F Co., Ltd.' office in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 8, 2008, Defendant A said that “If the Defendants purchased a coffee machine from our company and are entrusted with the entrusted management, 30-40% of the operating income may be leased by our company, and our company is currently entering into a contract for the supply of a variety of sports organizations, the Korean labor team, and the Korean labor team is expected to supply up to 100,000 won of its operating income, so there is no concern about business and revenues at all,” and Defendant B said that “I will pay part of its operating income, which is good business prospects, and make investment of KRW 10,000,000.”

However, the fact that the LAD did not have entered into a sports organization, the Korea Labor Management Institute, and the KAD, and that the LAD had to be supplied with the LAD, was aware that the LAD could not produce and supply the LAD to the Defendants because the LAD had been sold to others by the Defendants. Since the Defendants did not proceed with the LAD rental business, the Defendants did not have any ability or intent to provide the victims with the profits from the LAD, even if they did not receive the funds from the victims, they did not have the ability to pay the profits from the LAD lease.

Defendants are as above.