Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the fraud regarding E shall be acquitted. The foregoing shall be acquitted.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On October 28, 2015, the Defendants were sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for each crime in the support of Suwon Friwon, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 17, 2016.

[2] Criminal facts are criminal facts by the Defendants: (a) those who operate G in the Sinsung City F with the husband and wife, and (b) Defendant A needs to operate the business fund at the victim I’s house located in the Sinsan-si Seoul Metropolitan Government Council H 101 on September 2013.

A false statement was made that automated machines intended to purchase KRW 80 million and KRW 20 million borrowed KRW 100 million after November 18, 2014, a year after borrowing KRW 100,000,000. The interest rate of KRW 250,000 per month was to be paid.

However, in fact, the Defendants were in a situation where the entire ice sales market operated around 2006 had difficulties in insolvency or economy, and approximately KRW 180 million had been liable for the debt of KRW 180,000,00,000, and even if they were to borrow money from the damaged party, they were thought to be used for the purpose of repayment of debt and the payment of wages to employees, and they did not intend to purchase the automated machine, and there was no intention or ability to pay the money by the due date for payment determined by the victim.

As such, the Defendants were informed of the victim by deceiving the victim on November 15, 2013, and received a total of KRW 100 million, including KRW 50 million from the account under the name of G Co., Ltd. on November 15, 2013 and KRW 50 million from the same account on November 19, 2013 (Defendant A denies the criminal intent of defraudation, Defendant B denied the fact that he was involved in the crime of defraudation or this case, but as seen in the criminal facts in the final judgment of fraud, the Defendants were unable to lend a large amount of money from many persons prior to the instant case, and thus, the Defendants could not normally change it even if they borrowed money from the victim at the time, and in light of the witness I’s statement, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant B’s participation was sufficiently recognized.