A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, the above defendant shall be sentenced to the above punishment for two years from the date of the above judgment.

The prosecutor charged Defendant A with committing the instant crime in collusion with Defendant A, but it is judged that there is no risk of actual disadvantage to the exercise of the above Defendant’s right to defense. Thus, Defendant A’s sole crime without any changes in indictment is recognized.

On February 18, 2011, Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on February 26, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 26, 2011.

Criminal facts

Defendant

A around March 11, 2008, at the International General Law Office located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H, the victim G is referred to as the "Large SL Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Large SL Construction Co., Ltd.") on March 7, 2008.

A Promissory Notes with a face value of KRW 160,000,000 shall be exchanged for cash and shall be settled without a molding on June 7, 2008.

A promissory note shall be drawn up separately as security and notarized.

In addition, there are civil claims that B has received even a favorable judgment, which will also be offered as security.

The phrase “the meaning was false.”

Defendant A continued to deliver to G a copy of the judgment, a certificate of promissory note construction in the name of Defendant A, and a note of payment in the name of Defendant B in the name of Defendant B, and a note of payment in the name of the above Defendant B, and it received from G KRW 145 million calculated by deducting the interest of KRW 160 million in the face value of the largeSL Construction Promissory note from KRW 160 million.

However, the fact is that the promissory note issued by the LargeSL Construction is a financing bill and it is unlikely to receive it on the date of payment, and it was actually processed in default before the date of payment. Furthermore, even though Defendant A was carrying Defendant B as a guarantor, there was no contact with the above Defendant B after then, Defendant A was responsible for the final repayment of KRW 160 million borrowed from Victim G, and Defendant A was responsible for the final repayment of KRW 160 million from the victim G. On April 3, 2008.