Defendant

A Imprisonment for three years, Defendant D’s imprisonment for one year and six months, Defendant B’s imprisonment for six months, and Defendant Company.

Punishment of the crime

【Defendant A’s criminal records” was sentenced on September 26, 2014 by the Daegu District Court to a one-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for fraud, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 7, 2014.

Defendant

B was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for fraud at the Daegu District Court on August 30, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 9, 2013. On December 10, 2013, the decision was rendered on December 18, 2013 by sentenceing one year of suspended execution to six months of imprisonment for fraud.

【Criminal facts】 Defendant A is the representative director of N, Inc., a similar recipient company located in Daejeon U.S. M from April 20, 2009 to July 2010; and Defendant A is the representative director of C, a similar recipient company, from December 17, 2012 to December 17, 2012, who is engaged in the operation of each of the above companies.

Defendant

B is an auditor of the said N Co., Ltd. from April 20, 2009 to July 2010. From July 201, 2010 to July 201, the representative director is a person who is engaged in the operation of the company.

Defendant

C is a corporation that is engaged in visit sales business, etc. on the 7th floor of Daegu Dong-gu Otel.

1. Defendant A, Defendant A, and P need to choose to reduce 10,00 shares, regardless of whether the reimbursement was made, from the place of close close close close close close close close close door of the victim J in Q in Y in Y in Y in Y, on October 209, including 10% interest after three months, if the business fund is urgently loaned to the victim J.

After three months, it was false to the effect that the export price is KRW 1.3 billion entered in China, and thus repayment or share allocation is to be made without any mold.

However, Defendant A was liable for the amount of KRW 1.7 billion from December 2, 2008, and at the time, Defendant A was in a difficult state to manage funds without any actual results. Accordingly, Defendant A’s shares, which were managed by the Defendants, did not have substantial value, are worth pecuniary value even if they were to receive investments from the victims.