A Imprisonment for one year, Defendant BF imprisonment for ten months, and Defendant BG for eight months, respectively.

(b).

Defendant

BG on June 4, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced 1 year and 6 months to imprisonment for a crime of aiding and abetting the violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, and completed the execution of the sentence on May 12, 2014.

1. Defendant A and BF engaged in the joint criminal conduct of Defendant A and BF, from April 2007 to around August 201, decided to deliver the said company to BG, and on September 6, 201, Defendant A and BF had BG borrow KRW 100 million from BG on the security of the land in the name of the said company on the same day.

Defendant

A and BF were urged by BO to pay KRW 100 million, and around January 2013, in order to cancel the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage established in BO, BG filed a civil lawsuit against BO with the intent to cancel the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage by stealing arbitrarily stolen the seal imprint, etc. and arbitrarily completed the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage. A.

Defendant

A and BF, at the Cheongju District Court's comprehensive civil petition office located in 51, Seowon-gu, Seowon-gu, Seowon-gu, Cheongju-ro, 62-ro, 51 on May 8, 2013, the fact was that BG created a mortgage on the land under the name of BN corporation, with the consent of the above Defendants, but the fact was that “BG arbitrarily stolen the seal imprint, etc. from BG, thereby establishing a mortgage with BO, and thus the establishment of the mortgage is null and void,” and that “BG voluntarily created a mortgage on the land under the name of BN, and thus, cancelled,” by means of filing a lawsuit seeking cancellation registration of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, by deceiving the above court, but did not perform that intent,

B. As Defendant A and BF lost in the civil litigation instituted as described in the foregoing paragraph 1(a), the facts charged in November 2014 stated as “201.” However, it is clear that it is a clerical error in the context before and after, and later, corrected that it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the context. In order to win at the appellate court, BG is intended.