2. Defendants each of the above facts.

1. Defendant B, around April 17, 2015, can be said to have been repaid to the victim under “C” operated by the victim D, which was located in the Dacheon-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

It made a false statement that 5.4 million won will be repaid within one month with payment in advance.

However, even if the defendant received the advance payment from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to work as an employee.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was transferred KRW 5.4 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant on the same day from the victim.

2. The Defendant A around April 17, 2015, at the same time operated by the above victim, is liable to repay the victim’s damage to another place.

It made a false statement that 4.3 million won will be repaid within one month with payment in advance.

However, even if the defendant received the advance payment from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to work as an employee.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received 4.3 million won from the victim to the Saemaul Treasury account in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the Defendants

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the attraction of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, applicable to the order of provisional payment;