A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and for one year and six months, respectively.

except that from the date of this judgment.

Unlike as indicated in the indictment, the instant crime against Defendant B and the crime of fraud, which became final and conclusive on February 24, 2016, do not constitute a case where a single final and conclusive judgment (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Office 2010 order 4366) is rendered concurrently, and thus, does not constitute concurrent crimes by a group after Article 37 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14768, Feb. 25, 2010). Defendant A is the actual operator of the E E, and Defendant B is the actual operator of the F, and Defendant B performed the construction of a new factory in the said paragraph (State) E as the actual operator of the F.

In carrying out the new construction of a factory in J in Jin-si (ju), the Defendants shall obtain a loan of facility funds by using the system of facility loan of the branch in J in J in J in J in Jin-si, and shall appropriate it in excess of the construction cost, and the remainder of loans except the actual construction cost shall be returned to Defendant A in the order of funds to operation. On June 2015, the new construction of the above factory shall be ordered by Defendant B to receive KRW 1.75 million of the construction cost from 1.5 billion of the construction cost, and the new construction of the above factory shall be ordered to receive KRW 1.5 billion of the construction cost from 1.5 billion of the construction cost and KRW 1.5 billion of the construction cost from 1.5 billion of the value-added 2.5 billion of the construction cost to 1.5 billion of the construction cost and submit an application to the person in charge of the loan of the construction fund in the name of the person in charge of the loan of the construction project from 1.5 billion won to 1.5 billion won of the construction cost of the above.