Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the above sentence against Defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B On April 7, 2011, the Busan District Court sentenced one year to imprisonment for fraud, and completed the execution of the sentence on March 31, 2012.

During the process of the F Redevelopment rearrangement project, the Defendants conspired to acquire the fees for attracting investment money from the victims with the knowledge that it is necessary to move expenses, such as moving expenses.

At around 17:00 on October 30, 2013, the Defendants made a false statement to the victim E that “The victim E was able to receive an investment of KRW 2 billion from the investors in Seoul by the end of December 2013, and invest KRW 298 billion in order to make an investment in the amount of KRW 20 million by the end of December 2013.”

However, the Defendants did not have any intention or ability to attract investment of KRW 2 billion from investors.

The Defendants acquired 20 million won from the victim's cashier's checks and acquired them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of witness E, G, A, and H;

1. Each police statement of E and H;

1. Previous records: Application of inquiries, such as criminal records, and investigation reports (reports on the same type of criminal records)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime (for the defendants), Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act Aggravation of repeated crimes;

1. The defendant B and the defense counsel's assertion of the suspended execution (the defendant A) of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code against the defendant B and the defense counsel alleged that the above defendant had the intent or ability to attract investment of KRW 20 billion at the time when the victim received KRW 20 million from the victim. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the above defendant did not have the ability to attract investment of KRW 2 billion (the above defendant was to submit evidentiary materials, but did not actually submit evidentiary materials).