Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and for a defendant B, for two years, respectively.

However, as to Defendant A, this shall not apply.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B On February 18, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced three years to a suspended sentence of one year and six months for fraud, and the said judgment was finalized on June 5, 2010. On October 7, 2011, the said judgment was finalized on October 15, 201, which was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence to six months of imprisonment for the same crime by the same court. On August 8, 2014, the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 9, 2015.

Defendant

A, around August 9, 2007, the representative director of the G (hereinafter referred to as the “G”), Defendant B as the representative director of the State H, and the Defendants conspired with each other, that the Defendant would give the victim the second floor of the victim F in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul International Building Building Construction at the office of the J (hereinafter referred to as the “J”) of the victim F, the second floor of the victims of the Seocho-gu Seoul International Building Construction Co., Ltd. orders the victim to “K apartment reconstruction association (hereinafter referred to as the “instant association”) to undertake a show of 6,834 households of the reconstruction association in relation to the K apartment reconstruction construction. Therefore, the payment of the performance bond

However, in relation to the K Apartment Reconstruction Project at the time, the project operator was not selected because of extreme conflict between the instant association and the Emergency Countermeasure Committee as a matter of association withdrawal, etc., and the Defendants did not have entered into a formal contract for the said project with the instant association, and it was unclear whether the said project could be carried out, so even if the victims received a performance bond from the victim, they did not have the intent or ability to reduce the subcontracted construction.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 20 million from the victim in the name of the performance guarantee for construction works, i.e., KRW 20 million, and KRW 300 million from the same place on August 17, 2007.

Summary of Evidence

1. The entry of part of Defendant B in the first trial records, and the part of Defendant A in the second trial records;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and L;

1. Part on Defendant B