A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of eight months.

However, for two years from the date of the above judgment.

The Defendants of the 2014 Highest 3843, Defendant A, while serving as a former staff of the NIS, conspireded to deceiving the victim as if he would make a profit by encashing the non-funds, thereby deceiving the person who is in charge of the consideration from the victim.

around September 20, 2012, Defendant B conspired with the Defendants, at the Eel located in the Mah City of Gyeong-do of Gyeong-do, on September 20, 2012, concluded that “I will take charge of the payment of the consideration to the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of the consideration of

On September 21, 2012, the following day from the victim by deceiving the victim as such, the Defendants were delivered to the Cheongchina who was in the market value at the Cheongchina parking lot in Seoul personnel Dong-dong.

Around September 28, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim H at the 8th floor of the headquarters of the Jung-gu Seoul Central Bank, Jung-gu, Seoul, stating that “The Defendant is a national employee, who is dispatched from the 8th floor of the headquarters of the Bank and is in charge of two times the money deposited in the account.” Therefore, if the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million, he/she will return money twice within 10 days.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have such increased duties, but did not have any particular property or income, and therefore, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay as promised, even if he borrowed money from the victim.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 30 million from the victim under the same day as the borrowed money.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

"2014 Highest 3843"

1. Each legal statement to witness I and J;

1. Each prosecutor's office against Defendant A.