1. Defendant A and Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months.

2. Defendant B is not guilty.3. Defendant B is not guilty.

Punishment of the crime

[Defendant A was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Incheon District Court on May 16, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 11, 2014. On November 18, 2014, the Incheon District Court sentenced six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 29, 2015. On June 4, 2015, the Seoul High Court sentenced two years and six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Seoul High Court on February 20, 2015. On July 3, 2015, the above judgment was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc., and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 3, 2015, Defendant C was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor from Seoul District Court on July 17, 2014 to the same judgment on July 14, 2014.

[2] On August 1, 2013, the Defendants purchased an apartment house 108 Dong 102, Dong 102 (hereinafter “the instant apartment house”) in the name of I, and then borrowed money using a false lease contract document and a deposit money, although there was no fact that they concluded a lease contract for the said apartment house, Defendant C took charge of the crime, such as determining the method of crime, and introduction to Bros, and Defendant A conspired to become a false tenant.

On November 27, 2013, the Defendants borrowed KRW 50 million from the victim JJ to the victim on the condition that the claim for the deposit of the deposit of KRW 140 million for the above apartment of Defendant A would be transferred to the victim at the Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City)'s Jung-dong office of the law firm Jung-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City).

However, in fact, Defendant A was a false tenant and was pretended to have paid the deposit money for the lease on a deposit basis, but did not actually have the deposit money for the lease on a deposit basis. Therefore, even if the Defendants borrowed money from the damaged party, they did not have the intent or ability to pay the deposit money.

The Defendants conspired to deception the victim, thereby deceiving the victim.