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

However, this judgment is delivered to Defendant A.

[2014 Highest 3647 [Defendant A] (Defendant A) is a person who operates the "F" company of the automobile industry established for the purpose of automobile repair and the automobile trading brokerage business.

1. The defendant and E jointly committed the crime will provide the victim G with earnings if they make an investment in F;

In order to receive investment money from the injured party by fraud, it was recruited to receive the investment money.

On January 2013, the Defendant offered that “If he invests 35 million won in F, he/she will give 1/3 of the company’s equity interest and 3 million won per month as a profit” to the victim from F located in Young-si H in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

However, in fact, E has no intention or ability to pay shares and profits because it is impossible to operate the company normally due to the burden of 100 million won or more and the failure to pay automobile parts costs and employees' wages.

E, on condition that he/she uses 20 million won from damage on January 29, 2013, on condition that he/she uses 20 million won from damage, he/she shall receive one credit card from the victim's bank, settle 664,900 won under the name of repayment of accounts accounts smuggling in I around January 29, 2013, and shall do so from that time until January 31, 2013.

1. The sum of KRW 19,958,900 in total over 10 times as indicated is used as a debt repayment, and as from January 30, 2013, the amount was remitted 15 million won to the Agricultural Cooperative account under the name of JJ in the female-gu, 2013.

2. On October 2012, the Defendant solely committed the Defendant’s crime saying that “The Defendant would have a victim G with the mutual influent restaurant located in the Suwon-si Suwon-si Suwon-si, that “it would be easy for the Defendant to obtain reclamation permission because he or she has a large number of people who want to view influent and friendship with the public works company.”

However, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to facilitate reclamation permission by exercising influence on public officials belonging to the Defendant.

The defendant shall be a public official belonging to the defendant who is suffering from the damage.