A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Nos. 1 to 5, seized in the case Nos. 492 of 2018.

Punishment of the crime

On June 15, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and two months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court), and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 23, 2018.

On June 2015, the Defendant is the registration auditor of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) established for the purpose of implementing real estate and consulting business around June 2015.

In the process of promoting various real estate development projects, such as the project of the G-si Regional Housing Association, the Defendant had no record of designation as a new company, and had no construction company seeking to participate in the project, etc., and had no idea of participation in the project, the Defendant had tried to promote the project by raising the image of the D-si District Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as “D”) by participating in external public relations before acquisition of the D-si project, and by raising the corporate value.

Accordingly, on June 13, 2016, the Defendant is the representative of the subcontractor company holding the subcontract price claim amounting to KRW 5 billion against D at the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul E building F. B office, and D M&A as the representative of the subcontractor company with the subcontract price claim amounting to KRW 5 billion to D. H of the representative director of the G in charge of the damage company in which A was promoted.

M&&A holding KRW 60 billion for acquisition fund, and making a false statement to the effect that M&A consulting will be paid KRW 3 billion on the face of the week, and around that time the IBK Bank issued the balance certificate of KRW 60 billion on the IBK Bank through I.

However, the above consolidated balance certificate was forged, and there was no intention or ability to accept D due to the absence of substance and the lack of bid bond for D underwriting, and there was no intention or ability to accept D. The 3 billion won is not owned, and there was no intention or ability to pay the cost even if the consulting service was provided to the damaged company.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the representative of the victimized company H.