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

【Defendant B was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a crime, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court on June 17, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 25, 2014. On April 24, 2015, the Seoul Western District Court sentenced one year of imprisonment for a crime of fraud and two years of suspended execution, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 12, 2015.

【Criminal fact-finding on January 2013, 2013, the Defendants concluded that “The amount of KRW 10 million is changed from the start-up amount to KRW 10 billion so that the victim C may receive a loan from KRW 2 billion to KRW 3 billion through the capital share holding KRW 30 billion in the mutual in the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.”

However, in fact, even if the Defendants received money from the injured party as the starting money, they did not have any intention or ability to lend funds.

On February 8, 2013, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim and received a delivery of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000 from the victim, in front of the check, for a total of KRW 8 and KRW 100,000 from the victim himself/herself.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Part of the witness A’s legal statement (limited to Defendant B);

1. Protocols concerning the interrogation of suspects by the prosecution against the Defendants (including the replacement of the Defendants)

1. Receipt, loan agreement, text message statement, and check issuance (number) [the defendant A merely introduced the defendant B by introducing and requesting the damaged person to introduce the investment source, and the defendant B shall pay KRW 10 million as a face-to face-face payment by confirming that the defendant A may deposit funds of KRW 10 billion at the D Samsungdong branch.

In this case, it only receives money and denies the criminal intent of defraudation while leaving the site of this case in terms of the monetary share.

However, the following circumstances, which can be comprehensively considered, are consistently decided by the victim from the investigative agency to this court.