Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants are substantially joint operators of C, and the above company, around February 7, 2014, entrusted the ownership and operation management right of the E tourist bus purchased by the victim with approximately KRW 190 million to the above company and transferred its ownership and operation management right to the above company. In general, the victim entered into a contract with the above company to pay management expenses to the above company while operating the above tourist bus under his own own own account. As such, the Defendants are occupational duties to preserve their property value, such as not arbitrarily establishing a mortgage on the above tourist bus.

Nevertheless, the Defendants offered the above tourist bus as security and offered funds to capital companies as a result of the shortage of the company operation funds in the course of the operation of the above company, and then offered a right to collateral security to the above tourist bus, which is KRW 130 million, to be loaned from H Co., Ltd. on July 22, 2015, in violation of the above duty, from the F Co., Ltd. F Co., Ltd.’s office and the above company office located in H Co., Ltd., and established a right to collateral security with the claim amount of KRW 130 million,00,000.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to acquire the same amount of property profit and caused the same property damage to the victim who is the owner of the land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the collection of principal and interest of loans;

1. The Defendants: Articles 356, 355 (2) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the applicable criminal facts and the choice of punishment;

1. The Defendants: (a) the Defendants’ reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act reflects the mistakes while recognizing the crimes; and (b) the continuous payment of loans after the instant crime appears to have been made to have been KRW 23.5 million; and (c) Defendant B appears to have been paid the actual amount of damages.