A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

Defendant

A above.

Defendant

B Co., Ltd. is a corporation that operates semiconductor manufacturing business in the old and US city C, and the defendant A is a representative director of the above corporation.

1. Where an occupant enterprise that owns an industrial site in an industrial facilities zone of defendants A intends to dispose of the industrial site sold in lots before a report on the completion of factory establishment, etc. is filed, it shall transfer

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as the representative director of the foregoing B around August 26, 2015, purchased the above industrial site of KRW 2186 square meters and KRW 753 square meters for D factory sites in the Gu-U.S.-si, which is an industrial facility zone in the industrial facility zone, in KRW 1,076,600,000,000, and concluded a contract for occupancy with the Korea Industrial Complex Corporation around March 10, 2016, but sold the above industrial site of KRW 1,220,000,000 on April 8, 2016 without filing a report on the completion of factory establishment, etc.

2. Defendant B, a representative director of the Defendant, committed a violation as prescribed in paragraph (1) in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to data to be submitted, such as a full certificate, real estate sales contract and real estate sales contract;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 52(1)1 and Article 39(1)1 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act, and the selection of fines;

B. Defendant B: Articles 54, 52(1)1, and 39(1)1 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act; selection of fines

1. Defendant A to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B, Inc.: The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not much much long to have established Defendant B, and in the case of tetech, the ownership was transferred on the date on which he acquired the ownership of the land for the instant case in the auction procedure.

A contract for occupancy was concluded after several months.