A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Structureing to commit fraud of lending money to workers by leasing money for lease on a deposit basis] The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport operates a system of lending money for lease on a deposit basis with the National Housing Fund to lend money to employees at a rate lower than the market interest rate if the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport applies for a loan with only certain documents such as a certificate of employment, detailed statement of salary, etc. without any special security,

그러나 근로자 주택전세자금 대출 관련 업무를 위탁 받은 금융기관이 형식적인 심사만 하고 대출을 해 준다는 사실을 알고, 대출브로커들은 허위로 임차인과 임대인 역할을 하는 사람들과 함께 근로자 주택전세자금 대출금을 가로챌 것을 모의하였다.

Accordingly, loan broscers made false employment-related documents and false contents related to the lessee, who is the nominal holder of the loan, and made the false documents to the lessee who will perform the lease. The false lessee, as above, submitted documents related to the false employment and the house lease contract to the financial institution, and applied for the loan of the house lease to the employee while submitting the house lease contract to the financial institution. The false lessor, who will engage in the lessor, confirms that the financial institution entered into a contract of the lease on a deposit basis, if the confirmation of whether the contract of the lease on a deposit basis is actually made or not, made a request for the loan of the worker on a deposit basis and received the loan to divide the loan.

[Specific Crime]

1. Defendant A is difficult to lend a financial institution by normal means, and even if he/she received a loan, he/she does not have the intent or ability to repay the loan, and took part in the above crime as a false lessee together with the bromoer, and the Defendant took part in the above crime, and took part in the Defendant’s normal work at the “E” company, and took part in the employee’