Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, with respect to Defendant B, it shall be for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A around April 30, 2012, at the E office located in Pyeongtaek-si D, the victim F and the victim G made a false statement to the effect that “The maximum debt amount of Pyeongtaek-si H land and building registered in the name of the wife B is set at KRW 850 million, but the actual debt is only KRW 460 million. The actual debt is merely KRW 460 million. The purchase price of the land will be cancelled in the entirety of the right to collateral security and transfer the ownership without the mold.” The Defendant B made a false statement to the effect that “The IE business right operated by our father on the first floor of the building on which the land and building were purchased shall also be transferred.”

However, in fact, at the time of the above IE business, the Defendants had to pay more than KRW 10 million on the monthly interest basis, while the Defendants had to pay more than KRW 780 million on the monthly interest basis at the time of the above IE business. At the time, the Defendants had been unable to pay interest solely on the revenues which were punished by the ME operation, and there was a plan to use real estate sales proceeds as other obligations owed by the Defendants. Thus, even if the Defendants received the sales proceeds from the victims, they did not have any intent or ability to transfer ownership by cancelling the collateral security established by the purchase proceeds.

Nevertheless, as seen earlier, the Defendants deceiving the victims, received KRW 80 million as the down payment around May 4, 2012 from the victims, and transferred KRW 220 million as the intermediate payment around May 22, 2012 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant B.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to induce victims to receive goods.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Prosecutorial suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. The police statement to G and J;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The sentencing guidelines of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are as follows.