A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

However, this decision is delivered to the Defendants.

H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) owns only 100% of the shares issued by L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) that is located in the J Hotel located in Jeju, and M is a shareholder who owns 100% of the shares issued by L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”). On December 15, 2010, M entered into a contract to purchase the said shares and casino business license, assets within the place of business, and pay the total amount of 14.6 billion won, and entered into a contract to purchase the said shares and casino business license, and paid the down payment and intermediate payment. From January 15, 201, H acquired and operated the casino from January 15, 201. As a dispute arises between H and M on the payment terms of KRW 12.3 billion, H notified M of the termination of the said contract on February 28, 2011.

After that, H entered into a contract with N, a corporation, the representative director of which Defendant A, on the transfer of stocks, business license, corporeal movables, and claims and obligations of a casino, and N, and on November 13, 2012, upon the payment of both the down payment, intermediate payment, and remainder, H succeeded to the casino business license from L. However, M andO, at that time, operated the casino of this case, did not claim that the contract between them and H is valid, and did not deliver the casino to Defendant A.

L filed an application with the Jeju District Court for a preliminary injunction against obstruction of business with M andO ( Jeju District Court Decision 2012Kahap255). On October 23, 2012, the said court rejected casino delivery on the ground that, “The contract between M and H was lawfully rescinded, and the contract between N and H is valid, M andO shall not interfere with entry, etc. of officers, employees, such as the representative director of L, and their agents, etc. into the casino business place.” (hereinafter “instant provisional injunction order”). However, M et al. rejected casino delivery on the ground that the instant provisional injunction order acknowledged the concurrent performance defense right to refuse to deliver the casino business place.

The defendant A has a physical power.