A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and for one year and six months, respectively.

However, the defendant A is subject to objection.

[Defendant A] On May 20, 2010, on the 28th day of the same month, Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for embezzlement, etc. at the District Court of Jung-gu on the 2010, and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

【Criminal Facts】 On January 2010, the Defendants entered into an agency contract with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) to receive piping materials and components produced from G, Defendant B, using the name of the company re-general company (hereinafter “re-general company”) that had already reported the closure of business and does not actually engage in any business. Defendant A entered into an agency contract by using the title of the company re-general company (hereinafter “re-general company”) in the name of the aforementioned re-general company; Defendant A entered into the agency contract by using the title of “director A; Defendant B established the right to collateral security on the part of the part of the company located in the Corporation in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City as a collateral for the goods to be supplied; Defendant B was supplied with the same amount equivalent to KRW 121,952,90 from G.

As the Defendants demanded additional security on the part of the inn building offered as security in G as seen above because senior collateral is too many, and there is no value of collateral, the Defendants made a false statement to the effect that “The Victim L, who operates the K gas station located in J of the original state, intends to sell the said K gas station at around May 10, 2010, approaching the victim and purchase the gas station at KRW 2 billion. Of the purchase price, KRW 1.5 billion, from the purchase price to the K gas station, G shall be the creditor, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.5 billion shall be set up with the debtor who is the re-individual.”

However, the above company was already closed, and the defendants used only the name of the company without any connection with the above company. Since the defendants actually did not have any re-argument, the above company's intent or ability to purchase the above K station actually.