A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and for one year, respectively.

[Defendant A was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Seoul High Court on August 16, 2012, and the above judgment was finalized on November 15, 2012. Defendant B was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Cheongju District Court on February 10, 2012 and the above judgment was finalized on February 18, 2012, and the execution of the sentence was completed in the official prison on August 1, 2012.

[Criminal facts] 2016 Highest 634

1. Defendants A, from around December 2005, engaged in the removal business with the trade name “F” from the seventh floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E building from around December 2005, and Defendants B, from around March 2008, engaged in the business with the position of the president of the above F, and the Defendants, on September 2008, have the right to remove the land of Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government New Town on September 2008.

The defendant A attempted to obtain money by fraud, and the defendant A instructed the defendant B to borrow KRW 100 million.

Defendant

B around September 18, 2008, at the above F office, "The victim G has the right to remove the new zone in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and if the removal is made, it is possible to pay a big amount of money, and there is no amount of KRW 100 million for the current project, and if it is lent KRW 100 million as the project fund for the removal of the new zone in Mapo-dong, Mapo-gu, the principal amount is KRW 100 million, with interest, profit, etc., and KRW 25 million will be granted within one month, and 25% of the shares of the proceeds from the removal work will be paid.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, at the time, the above corporation F was not in the state of receiving the right to remove the new town in Mapo-dong Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, and was trying to use the same as the so-called street funds by receiving KRW 100 million from the injured party and providing the redevelopment association in return for operating expenses. Defendant A was liable for a loan amounting to approximately KRW 3.5 billion at the time, and the Defendants were particularly property.