2.O (No. 2);

3. ○○○ (3 times).

However, with respect to Defendant ○○○ (2), the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant ○○○ (two times) issued an order to provide community service for 120 hours on behalf of Defendant 1.

1. The co-principal of Defendant ○○○ (one time) and Defendant ○○ (2)

(a) Fraud against the victim A;

DefendantO (2) around May 2014, at a place where it is impossible to identify the address of the Seosan City and a 000 (1) who works together with B is the victim. According to the underground economic promotion policy promoted by the Park-Support Government, Defendant OO (2) has borrowed money due to lack of contract funds. Defendant OO (50,000 won) was used to borrow the passbook. Defendant 50,000 won was paid 3% of the money deposited in the passbook. Defendant 50,000 won was lent or invested in the passbook to the small and medium enterprises. Defendant 2,000 won was leased to the head of the Tong, and Defendant 4,000,000 won was loaned to the victim, and Defendant 5,000 won was not known in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City around May 10, 2014 (2014,000,0000 won). Defendant 26,000,000 won.

However, the Defendant did not have a certain occupation, and did not engage in any work related to policies to foster underground economy and underground expenses, and did not intend to borrow a passbook to deposit underground expenses even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, and did not have any intention or ability to repay the borrowed money as above because there was no other asset. The Defendant conspired with the victim, thereby deceiving the victim as above, and then by deceiving the victim and then deceiving the victim, the Defendant acquired it through the Defendant’s ○○○ (2)’s ○○○ (2) account in the name of the Defendant’s ○○○○ (2), around June 5, 2014, through the Defendant’s ○ account in the name of the said ○○○○○ (10 million), and around June 5, 2014, through the delivery of KRW 10 million to the ○ account in the name of the said ○ bank, KRW 39 million,000,0000,000 won.

B. Fraud against the victim B

Defendant around October 2014, at the ○○ Development Office for the operation of the victim in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Defendant is to receive working fees from the victim as it is well as the work related to underground rain funds.

The fee is paid only by the passbook of a financial corporation which is more than five billion won according to the Financial Transactions Act. So, it was said that the fee is paid only by the passbook of a financial corporation which is more than five billion won. Therefore, it was decided to take over the financial corporation which is the cause of five billion won established capital, so the down payment is changed to seven million won. It is entitled to receive a work fee within four and five days."

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have a certain occupation and did not engage in any work related to the policies for fostering underground expenses, and thus the Government cannot collect work fees from the Defendant. Even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, it did not have been planned to receive fees from the corporate account by acquiring a financial corporation which caused 5 billion won of the established capital, and did not have any intention or ability to repay the borrowed money within one month as above. The Defendant did not have any intent or ability to receive the full payment of the said borrowed money within the said one-month promise. The Defendant conspired with the victim, thereby deceiving the victim as above, and defrauded the victim by receiving KRW 7 million from the victim’s wife’s wife’s wife account at around October 20, 2014 (No. 2).

2. Joint criminal conduct of Defendant ○○○○ (one time) and Defendant ○○○ (3 times).

A. On June 9, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at the ○○ Development Office for the operation of the Victim B, the Defendant concluded the Defendant’s work to foster underground expense funds that had been promoted closely; and (b) the Defendant prepared for KRW 20 million, which is the second Vice Director of the NIS, after Defendant 00 (No. 1). Since the remainder of KRW 10,000,000,000 is insufficient, the Defendant was kept only after displaying the check if he lent the 10,000 won check; and (c) was returned within 20,300,000,0000,0000,0000 won, which is going back to Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant said that “The Defendant would dispose of all liabilities during that period.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have a certain occupation and did not engage in the work related to the policies for fostering underground funds and did not intend to use the check for personal purposes, not to return the check to persons related to the fostering of underground funds. There was no intention or ability to pay the check for no particular asset. The Defendant conspired with the victim as above, and conspired to deception the victim as above, and received one cashier’s check from the victim, around June 9, 2015, around KRW 10 million, and acquired it. (b) On June 12, 2015, at the above ○○○ Development Office of the victim’s operation on June 12, 2015, the Defendant continued to show that “the cash vehicle transport cost is more than KRW 5 million, and returned to the victim.” The first reason is that the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million to the Vice Minister of National Administration and Vice Minister of Justice and Vice Minister of Justice to the effect that the cash vehicle transport cost is more than KRW 5 million.

However, in fact, the defendants did not have a certain occupation, and even if they did not engage in the work related to the policy for raising underground funds, they did not intend to use them for personal purposes, not to return the checks to persons related to raising underground funds, and there was no intention or ability to pay the check money because they did not have any particular assets. The defendants conspired with the victims as above, and conspired to deception them as above, and received one cashier's checks with 5 million won around June 12, 2015, and take them over. On June 19, 2015, the defendants continued to receive 0 million won from the victim from the ○○○ hotel on the top of the hotel floor in Jongno-gu, Seoul on June 19, 2015, the victims "at last 5 million won, if the representative of small and medium enterprises has 5 million won, 50 million won, and 50 million won can be lent to the effect that they can be repaid."

However, the Defendant did not have a certain occupation, and did not engage in any work related to policies for the fostering of underground expenses, and there was no intention to use to change the amount from the victim to NA to NA, even if he borrowed money from the victim, and there was no intention to use to transfer the amount to NA, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the ability to pay it in full even if he borrowed money as above without any particular asset.

The Defendant conspiredd to deception the victim as above and obtained five cashier's checks from the victim around June 19, 2015, which are 1 million won.

3. Around September 6, 2014, Defendant 1’s sole criminal conduct of Defendant ○○○○○ (one time) stated to the effect that “The victim B agreed with the head of the Tong with the money received from A in relation to underground economic growth, and the money should be transferred to the victim B, and the Government’s joint team needs to conduct a field inspection on the target company. If the actual inspection cost is leased to KRW 3 million, it is the case that tin will receive the commission for the head of the Tong, and that he will also repay the borrowed money from A.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have a certain occupation, and did not engage in any work related to policies for fostering underground economy and underground expenses, and even if she borrowed money from the victim, there was no intent to borrow the passbook to deposit underground expenses or to use it as corporate inspection expenses. There was no other assets, and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money as above. The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above on September 6, 2014, obtained 3 million won from the victim with the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant’s internal women’s work, and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Acts and Subordinate Statutes

1. Article 347(1) and 30 (3) of the Criminal Act: Articles 347(1) and 347(1) of the Criminal Act, 347(1). ○○○○○○ (3 times of imprisonment): Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (comprehensively, choice of imprisonment);

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant ○○○○ (one time), ○○○ (2): the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50(1) of the Criminal Act, the suspension of enforcement.

Defendant OO (two times): Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Defendant ○○ (two times): Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

The reasons for sentencing are that the Defendant had to engage in the work related to the underground economic fostering policy, thereby deceiving the victims to acquire money. The method of committing the crime is not good, and the victim A’s damage amount to KRW 50 million and the victim B’s damage amount to KRW 30 million, and the long-term damage has not been recovered. Nevertheless, the Defendants did not reflect the mistake while denying the instant crime.

Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is imposed on the part of the defendants. In the case of the defendant ○○ (1), the degree of the defendants' participation and the profits actually acquired, and the defendant ○○○ (2), the defendant ○○○○ (2), and 000 (3 times) did not have any record of punishment. Considering the fact that there was no record of punishment as a crime of the same kind, the defendant’s age, character and conduct and environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence shall be determined as per the order, taking into account all the sentencing conditions, including the defendant’s age, character