However, each of the above penalties shall be executed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

A will register a card in the name of F on March 30, 2008 to F in that name.

In other words, F has a seal imprint certificate, a copy of the resident registration certificate, a copy of the resident registration certificate, and a seal imprint certificate from F. Defendant B, around April 15, 2008, prepared the “F’s seal imprint certificate,” which used F’s name as F as if he used the F’s seal imprint at the Hyundai Motor Vehicle H agency located in Y in Yan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the same day, and submitted this certificate, etc., along with the seal imprint certificate, I, a business employee of the said H agency, to the employee in charge of lending Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., and submitted it to the said H agency through I, who is a business employee of the said H agency, and the F made a loan application by reply to F as if he was a F. The loan employee in charge of the loan, leading the loan employee to pay the purchase price of TG car amount of KRW 24,400,000 on the same day.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to acquire property benefits equivalent to 24 million won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement made to J, F, and I;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on loans;

1. Relevant Articles 347 (1) and 330 of the Criminal Act: Defendants who choose to commit the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Consideration of favorable circumstances among the following grounds for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. of Social Service Orders;

1. The basic area (referring to six months to one year and six months) of the sentencing criteria (referring to the scope of the recommended punishment) for the general fraud; and

2. The crime of this case was committed by the defendants with a certificate of personal seal impression issued by others, and it was not good to the quality of the crime in light of the method of the crime, the defendants did not agree with the victim, and the defendant A had a record of criminal punishment of suspended execution due to the same crime.