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.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

[Attachment] On May 3, 2012, Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months for fraud in the Daejeon District Court's Incheon District Court's Branch, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 28, 2012.

[2013 Highest 296]

1. Defendant A and Defendant B, together with Defendant B, who were relatives and worked in the company in which they actually run, had the above company borrowed money from the above multi-family house in order to prevent auction from being conducted with respect to the multi-family house on the fourth floor F in the south-gu Seoul Metropolitan City where the above company borrowed the name of Defendant B.

On July 17, 2009, the Defendants made a false statement to the effect that “The above offices located in Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul to lend money as collateral to the victim H, and only one lessee may have the deposit amount of 18 million won by resolving all the existing lessees in this multi-household house. In addition, there are only six lessees of the monthly rent of 5 million won and some of the deposit amount are entered, and there is no problem in recovering the principal if only the right to collateral is established, and if money is lent as collateral for this multi-household house, the interest rate shall be 3% per month and one month later shall be repaid.”

However, at the time of fact, the above multi-family house was leased by 6 lessee and 1 lessee who caused 18 million won of deposit, and 20 million won of deposit, and as one lessee who caused 20 million won of deposit, the above multi-family house was held liable for security obligations equivalent to KRW 128 million in total. Defendant A did not engage in monetary transactions or company operation under his name in bad credit standing and has reached a debt amount equivalent to KRW 900 million. Therefore, Defendant A did not have any intention or ability to pay up until the due date or recover the principal of the above multi-family house as security even if he borrowed money from the victim.

The Defendants are from the victim to the Defendant B’s account from the seat.