Defendant

A Imprisonment for a period of two years and six months, imprisonment for a period of two years and imprisonment for a period of two years, and imprisonment for a period of six months, respectively.

(b).

The crime history room (2015 Gohap115) / [basic facts] The victim (the victim company)O (hereinafter referred to as the "victim company") implements multi-family housing business (hereinafter referred to as the "multi-family housing business in this case") at the P of Seosan-si P.

Defendant

A, as a substantial representative of the victim company, was transferred to Q (RR representative) the victim company on March 5, 2013 while promoting the apartment housing project in this case, and then received service fees of KRW 2 billion from the victim company and delegated by the victim company with the right to purchase the apartment site for the apartment project in this case. A is a person in charge of purchasing the apartment site necessary for the victim company's apartment project in this case, such as concluding a sales contract on behalf of the landowner and transferring ownership.

Defendant

B around March 5, 2012, when Defendant A operated the victim company and promoted the apartment project, Defendant A received service cost of KRW 1 billion from Defendant A, and delegated the right to purchase the apartment site from the victim company, Defendant A was in charge of purchasing the apartment site necessary for the victim company’s apartment project by concluding a sales contract on behalf of the landowner and transferring ownership. Defendant A transferred the victim company to Q on behalf of the victim company on March 5, 2013, and entered into a business consulting service contract with the victim company, Defendant A was in charge of purchasing the apartment site of the victim company with Defendant A from that time.

Defendant

A and Defendant B, as above, are delegated by the victim company with the right to purchase the apartment site necessary for the apartment project implemented by the victim company on behalf of the victim company, and were able to purchase the land at the land purchase price initially proposed by the landowner, despite the fact that the defendants were able to purchase the land from the victim company.