Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and four months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of eight months.

The request of the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

On January 8, 2015, Defendant A was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for fraud in this court, and the decision of dismissal on February 27, 2015 became final and conclusive around that time. Defendant B was sentenced to a stay of execution on March 19, 2015 at the Seoul Southern District Court for a period of four months of imprisonment for fraud, and the judgment on February 4, 2014 became final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

1. Defendant A and Defendant B’s joint crime (related to the victim D) at the coffee shop located in Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-si on March 18, 2013, Defendant D, introduced through Defendant B, planned to build a new apartment building with 984 households from June 2013 to Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si. Since the Republic of Korea has secured the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site, it would exceed KRW 210 million to the party.

In order to bring about operating rights clearly, KRW 100,00,00,000 should be paid to the snow side for the use of the street funds, etc., and 100,000,000,000 won

different types.

The phrase “A” is false, and Defendant B took part in the “Agreement on the Management and Operation of Joint Investment in On-Site cafeterias” and the instrument of fairness on the date, at the place, at the above time, and at the same time and at the same place, “A may have an operating right to transfer KRW 100 million to A.” and the victim participated as a guarantor.

However, in fact, Defendant A did not secure the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site at the time, even if he received KRW 100 million from the injured party, and was merely intended to use the restaurant as personal debt, etc. without using it to secure and transfer the right to operate the restaurant. Defendant B did not accurately know whether Defendant A secured the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the site at the construction site at the site at the site at the site at the site at the construction site at the site at the site at the request of the two parties, and was merely intended to receive the money in the name of the introduction cost and receive the money for personal use. Defendant B actually distributed KRW 10 million from the victim around March 22, 2013.