However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On March 29, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Labor Standards Act at the Seoul Central District Court on April 6, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 6, 2013. On February 13, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced three years of suspended execution to be a crime of fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on February 21, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 21st of

8.8. The same court was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime and the decision became final and conclusive on October 21 of the same year.

In collusion with E, the Defendant in collusion with the Defendant in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F on October 2010, at the G Farming Association office operated by the Defendant and E along with his employees, H, an employee, to purchase the land in the company, is expected to purchase the land in the future as a plan to purchase the land in order to expand the company in the future, modern iron, Dong iron, Dong steel, and Dong steel, etc. In order to purchase the land in the future, a large amount of money can be punished due to a short-term increase in land price, and if the purchase price is fully paid, the transfer of ownership will be registered, and the right to collateral security established on the land will also be terminated.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, at the time, the defendant et al. purchased the above land by lending the above bonds, and the other land that had been previously sold was also leased, but it was paid for the repayment of debts and repayment of interest because it was not performed properly, and the employees of the above company failed to pay monthly salary, etc., and thus, the company was in operation in using the money received from the purchaser of the land as repayment of the existing debts and interest, monthly salary, company expenses, etc., and thus there was no intention or ability to terminate the above mortgage even if he receives the land price from the damaged party.

Nevertheless, the defendant et al. deceiving the victim as above and are against the victim.