B Imprisonment for six months and for four months, each of the defendants A shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. On June 15, 2008, the Defendants conspired in collusion to find the victim D's residence in Bupyeong-si, Busan-si, the Defendant attempted to accept and operate the victim's "F in Seocheon-si, Young-si, Seoul-si, and the second floor of the F in the Gyeonggi-si E". However, the Defendants borrowed the deposit amount of KRW 20 million and borrowed the interest amount of KRW 3% per month, and if the deposit is returned due to the expiration of the lease term, the principal will be repaid.

“False speech” was made.

However, on the condition that the business operator registration of the Defendants is to be made in the name of G with respect to the mid-to-day store, G would make an investment in the security deposit for the above mid-to-day store. Therefore, even if the Defendants received money from the damaged party under the name of the borrowed money, they did not think of it as a security deposit. Moreover, the Defendants did not have the intent or ability to make changes because they did not have the right

Nevertheless, the Defendants acquired 20 million won as the borrowed money from the injured party for the use of the lease deposit.

2. On May 8, 2009, Defendant B’s fraud: (a) at the place indicated in paragraph (1) on May 1, 2009, the victim should enter into an extension contract with the expiration of the H lease contract term operated on the second floor of FF located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Young-si; (b) there is no security deposit in which monthly rent has been reduced from the security deposit due to the failure to pay monthly rent.

It is necessary to lend 20 million won to the funeral service.

“False speech” was made.

However, in fact, the restaurant operated by the Defendants on the second floor of F is owned by I Co., Ltd. and entered into a contract in the manner that the sales amount generated from the restaurant was fully deposited in the above company and the sales amount was deducted first by 25% of the commission per annum. Therefore, the security deposit was not deducted from monthly tax unpaid, and even if the Defendant received money from the injured party, it is said that the Defendant provided the victim with the above borrowed money.