A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Defendant

B shall be innocent.

Defendant

A Since the Ha of 2011, a person who, after purchasing or constructing a Moel building, purchased or constructed the Moel building in the name of the juristic person and used the Moel as a security, a loan and a security deposit for lease from those who intend to rent the Moel as a security, etc., to establish a new juristic person and acquire the ownership of the Moel in a single harbor by establishing a new juristic person in order to acquire the ownership of the Mour.

Defendant

A around August 20, 2012, at the office of G Co., Ltd. where Defendant A, a company located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, as an internal director, had been operated by Defendant A, at the port of port on August 20, 2012, said, “The monthly sales of the telecom in Nam-gu, Seoul, would be more than KRW 60 million, and the appraisal of the telecomed building would be more than KRW 3.3 billion. The net profit would be compensated if the net profit does not exceed KRW 14 billion. Although the right to collateral security was established, the appraisal of the above building would be more than KRW 3.3 billion, the appraisal of the building would be more than KRW 3.3 billion, and the amount of deposits would be sufficiently returned in the future because there is the mother telecom, a stock company owned by J-gu, Nam-gu, and L.”

However, in fact, Defendant A was liable for an amount equivalent to approximately KRW 6.5 billion at the time of construction of so-called so-called the above methods, and Defendant A continued to file a complaint from construction business operators and material material due to the amount of the unpaid construction work for Posi-gu K, L, and the unpaid construction work for Mour who was constructed on the ground of Posi-gu, North Korea, where Defendant B was the representative director, and the unpaid construction work for Posi-gu, Posi, and the unpaid construction work for Posi-gu, North Korea, where Defendant B was the representative director, and Defendant A continued to incur approximately KRW 6.5 billion interest cost that was extended to the upper limit of each of the above real estate as security, and the amount of national