As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant (2017 order 5432) (2017 order 5432), the crime No. 2 of the judgment (2016 order 6708) is committed.

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Records】 (1) On June 12, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Seoul Central District Court (2009 High Court Decision 2727) for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Detention Center on February 20, 2010.

② On January 30, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment for a crime of fraud in a state of absence at the Incheon District Court (2010 order last 3381) and was detained on April 3, 2012 thereafter, and appealed through the recovery of the right of appeal, but the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 18, 2012 upon receiving a judgment dismissing an appeal on August 10, 2012, and on March 14, 2013, the execution of the sentence was completed at the Macheon Prison.

③ On October 13, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act in the Daegu District Court (2016 High Court Decision 3852) and was finally decided on February 11, 2017.

1. The Defendant, along with C and D (one person) 5432, conspiredd to acquire money from the injured party under the pretext of loan brokerage fees, as if he/she could receive a loan by obtaining a payment guarantee under the name of the head of a bank.

C around February 10, 2012, at the “H” conference located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, “H” will allow the victims to obtain a loan through their friendship.

“The Defendant and D may obtain a loan of KRW 4 billion from the victim through the head of a branch office of a bank, upon receipt of the payment guarantee from the victim through the head of a branch office of a bank, on February 2012, 201.

As a result, the false statement was made that "40 million won is changed for expenses, such as entertainment expenses for the heads of branches of banks."

However, even if the defendant, C, and D received money from the injured party under the pretext of lending brokerage, etc., the injured party did not have the intent or ability to get a loan of KRW 4 billion, and the defendant, C, and D attempted to use the money received from the injured party for personal purposes in installments.