[Defendant A] The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, this judgment has become final and conclusive against Defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

In August 2017, the Defendants were able to enter the “D” restaurant operated by the Defendants in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., and Defendant A was able to enter the victim E through a candidate for the Chairperson of the F Labor Relations Commission, who will have the victim E work in F within three months, and Defendant B can enter the victim E through a candidate for the Chairperson of the F Labor Relations Commission who attends the “F Labor Relations Commission” church.

The term "the expression was false."

However, in fact, the defendants did not know the candidates, and even if they received money from the victims, they did not think that they would be used as operating expenses for the above restaurant, but did not have the intent or ability to become the victims to become the F.

On September 28, 2017, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim as above, and received delivery of KRW 20 million (one sheet of KRW 10 million, one sheet of KRW 5 million, five million, and five copies of KRW 5 million) from the victim for employment funds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement, Defendant A’s partial legal statement

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to cashier's checks, photographs and recording books;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and the Defendants who choose a punishment for the crime: Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendants on probation: Defendant A and his defense counsel’s assertion on Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; Defendant A and the defense counsel did not have conspired to commit fraud in advance with Defendant B; Defendant B’s speech was delivered to the victim as it is; Defendant B acquired money from the victim through Defendant A in a planned manner; thus, Defendant B denies the facts charged.

Public invitations in relation to accomplices who are co-processed with two or more crimes are not required by law, and there are two or more persons in collusions to realize crimes by jointly processing them.