Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, as to the defendants, it is three years from the date of this judgment.

Defendant A was the representative director of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”), and Defendant B was a person who was well aware of the fact that he mainly performed the construction work of E-Internet telephone while recruiting E-Internet subscribers.

Defendant

B around May 14, 2008, around May 2008 to June 6, 2008, at the (ju) G Office of the Victim C’s Operation in the Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-si, and around January 14, 2008, he introduced Defendant A, who was aware of the fact, to the above C, after receiving a title trust agreement with respect to the commercial building of the fourth floor size on the land (hereinafter “the building of this case”) located in I and I, and at the request of the head of H (hereinafter “H”), sold the ownership of the commercial building of the fourth floor on the land located in one parcel, and received a loan of KRW 500 million as security.

Defendant

A, upon the request of the above C, entered into an oral title trust agreement with it, and around September 12, 2008, the above G G office entered into a real estate sales contract with the building of this case at KRW 270,000,000 at the above G office, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under D name on the same day, and had the building of this case kept for the victim.

On September 9, 2010, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the building of this case equivalent to the maximum debt amount by lending KRW 40 million to J at the Macheon-si District Court in the Sincheon-si, Sincheon-si, Sincheon-si, and by leasing KRW 40 million to J as security the building of this case, the obligee K and the maximum debt amount of which are KRW 200 million.

A trustee who conducts an act of disposal as a trustee under the name of D is a corporation that is D, and D was a de facto one of the Defendant A (Evidence Record 25 pages). Thus, the above Defendant may be the subject of embezzlement. Since the victim is a corporation that is H, or a so-called “documents-based company” established by H to obtain a loan in the course of public sale of the building in this case, and H also is a so-called “documents-based company” established by H to obtain a loan (Evidence Record 54 pages).