Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and for one year, for Defendant B.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor of April 17, 2008 and two years of suspended execution at the Seoul Eastern District Court for the same month.

4.25. The above judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant

B was sentenced to imprisonment on May 19, 2005 with prison labor on May 19, 2005 at the Seoul Western District Court, and the execution of the sentence was completed on July 11, 2006.

Defendant

A served as the representative director of C (the trade name was changed to D; hereinafter referred to as “C”) who is engaged in freight forwarding services, etc., and Defendant B served as the chief director of C.

Defendant

A collected money from its subordinate employees, including Defendant B, for the purpose of collecting money from its subordinate employees to enter into a transportation service contract, etc., and Defendant B performed the above tasks.

The Defendants conspired to make an advertisement to purchase vehicles and arrange employment in the living information area, such as rice Luxembourg market, and intended to acquire money in the name of the purchase cost of the vehicle from those who reported the advertisement.

[208 High Court Order 1486]

1. On May 18, 2007, the Defendants’ fraud against the victim E, and the Defendant B, at the C office near the exit of Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul, on May 18, 2007, reported the job offer advertisement to the Defendant 2.5 tons of cargo-to-be cargo-to-be, and the Defendant E, who discovered the job offer advertisement to the Defendant 2.5 tons of cargo-to-be cargo-to-be, issued the cargo-to-be to deliver the cargo-to-bes and to-be to pay the cargo-to-bes if paid in 16 million won.” The Defendants’ fraud from the victim’s 80 million won on May 18, 2007, and received KRW 3,000,000 on May 21, 200, and KRW 3,00

5. 22.2,200,000 won and the 7,000,000,000 won for the same month were remitted to each of the above C accounts.

However, even if the Defendants received money from the victim, they did not have the intent and ability to have the victim perform the work as the owner of the cargo.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to deception the victim by deceiving the victim.

[208 Godan5223] 2.