A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

Defendant

B The application for remedy by the applicant for remedy of innocence shall be dismissed.

1. The facts charged by the withdrawal of the loan certificate on May 2015 are deemed to have been recruited by Defendant A with Defendant B. However, as seen thereafter, it is insufficient to prove the facts that Defendant B conspired and participated in the criminal act of Defendant A. As such, the part of the facts charged regarding Defendant B’s conspiracy and participation in the criminal act is deleted to the extent that it is not likely to cause a substantial disadvantage to Defendant A’s exercise of his/her right to defense.

B on December 17, 2014, the victim F was liable for a total of KRW 37.5 million.

On January 7, 2015, the Defendant had the refluence of the victim at the victim’s house on January 7, 2015, and “ 1,000 square meters are the land trusted in the name of G in the name of G, which is located in the Gyeongcheon-do, Gyeongcheon-do, and is KRW 5 million per square.

On July 2015, if you sell land on or around 2015, you will immediately lend 60 million won to you, and at the same time, you will pay 37.5 million won to the victims of B.

“Along with the word “B”, the Defendant’s name, in which the amount of the borrowed money was KRW 97.5 million ( KRW 60 million for the Defendant’s debt, KRW 37.5 million for the Defendant’s debt) was drawn up with the Defendant’s certificate of borrowing KRW 97.5 million on January 7, 2015.

B signed and sealed the above loan certificate as the surety.

After the defendant got close to the victim on May 2015, the defendant would recover the letter of renunciation on April 8, 2015, which was prepared to the effect that if the defendant returned the certificate of borrowing KRW 97.5 million from January 7, 2015 to B, the victim would not pay the debt to B, and would be able to receive the claim KRW 37.5 million against B.

“A false statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have land in Gyeongcheon, and did not have the intent or ability to repay his/her debt and B’s debt to the victim, and the Defendant drafted to the effect that the victim would not claim KRW 37.5 million against B, with no intention to return it, even before April 8, 2015.