A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and for ten months, for each of the defendants B.

On October 11, 2010, the Defendants conspired with the victim E to purchase three dump trucks (H, I, and J) in the name of G in which the said victim and the victim F are the guarantor, and promised with the victim E to pay the installment amount faithfully and sell the said dump truck to a third party, instead of maintaining the guarantor as to the installment amount of the said dump truck.

However, the Defendants did not have the intent or ability to pay the balance of the installment as the promise.

As seen above, the Defendants deceptioned the victims E and caused the victims to pay for KRW 356,782,923 on behalf of the victims for the benefit of property equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of K witness K;

1. Statement made by witnesses E in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Examination protocol of Defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning L;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Defendants of the relevant legal provisions and the choice of punishment regarding criminal facts: Determination of the allegations under Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act and the reasons for sentencing

1. The Defendants denied the facts charged in the instant case. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendants promised to “in the event that the Defendants sell the instant dump trucks to a third party, to repay the balance to the said third party in lump sum payment,” and whether there exists a conspiracy between the Defendants.

Therefore, the above facts can be fully recognized according to the evidence as seen earlier, the business relationship of the Defendants, the location of the purchased vehicle, and the circumstances of the disposal, etc.