Embezzlement of the victim AZ(the first crime in the Case No. 2016 Highest 5399), and fraud 2016 Highest 5494.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On June 20, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for embezzlement at the Seoul Central District Court on June 20, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 28th of the same month. On August 25, 2016, the Seoul Western District Court sentenced the Defendant to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud.

9.2. The person for whom the judgment has become final and conclusive.

【Criminal Facts】

"2016 Highest 5399"

1. Around November 2012, the Defendant, while running a business of selling asphalt materials together with the Victim AZ, provided one of the BCCR-V car at the market value equivalent to KRW 38.9 million, which was leased by the Victim’s name, and kept for the purpose of business, and embezzled the said car as a collateral by borrowing KRW 10 million from the nominal and unregistered bond company around March 2013, while using it for the purpose of business.

2. Around July 10, 2014, the Defendant, while running a business of selling ice forest materials with the victim BA, provided one unit of BD ASEAN in an amount equivalent to KRW 90 million in the market price leased by the victim’s name from the victim and stored for the victim, while borrowing KRW 8 million from AO on August 9, 2014 while using the said vehicle for business purposes, and embezzled it by providing the said vehicle as a collateral.

around October 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “Around October 2012, the victim AZ operated in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, proposed that the victim engaged in a club business for the sales of ice cream materials to the effect that “if the funds necessary for the business are invested, the profits will be paid as well as the principal will be repaid.”

However, in fact, the Defendant, as the person with bad credit standing, was in a situation where only KRW 300 million personal debt was exceeded, and most of the money received from the victim was planned to use for repayment of personal debt, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the above profits or to repay the principal.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is the victim as above.