Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of each of the above penalties for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On June 15, 2016, Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Western District Court (Seoul Western District Court) and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 4, 2016.

[Basic Facts] On January 6, 2014, Defendant A’s owner E’s husband F of the owner of the Dtel in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “officetel”) and the 130 million won per household (hereinafter “officetel”)’s difference between the Plaintiff’s husband F of the E and the sales of the officetel in excess of the 1.3 million won per household.

“The instant officetel entered into an agency contract for sale, and performed the sales agency business for the instant officetel.

Defendant

B, on April 2014, 2014, he/she was in charge of consulting on the sale and purchase of “Hz car page” located in Pyeongtaek-si G (hereinafter “Hz car page”).

I introduced the victim J, the owner of the KIKO, from I, and entered into a real estate brokerage service contract with the victim as a broker for the purchase and sale of the KIKO.

Defendant

A entered into an exchange contract with the victim on August 22, 2014 through the brokerage of the defendant B to exchange the victim's officetels with the victim, "the total amount of KRW 130,000,000 per officetel per household shall be the sale price of KRW 1,00,000 per officetel, and the victim shall borrow KRW 8,40,000 per household under the mediation of the defendant A with the total amount of KRW 12,00,000 per household, and the victim shall take over the total of KRW 96,00,000,000 per household, and the total amount of KRW 736,00,000,000,000 per household shall be borne by the victim, and the remainder shall be exchanged with the KR.

“As agreed,” the content was “.

In accordance with the above agreement, the victim transferred the whole of the right to lease and the facilities to the defendant A, but the defendant A had a dispute over the settlement amount with the F of the owner of an officetel, and the defendant A did not transfer the ownership of an officetel to the victim due to reasons such as the failure to terminate the trust established in the officetel due to the failure to obtain a loan from the financial institution.