Defendant

A Imprisonment of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won.

Defendant

B The above fine.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B On April 5, 2018, the Seoul Eastern District Court has been sentenced to four months of imprisonment for fraud and has been sentenced to the same year.

8.4. The judgment becomes final and conclusive, and on January 17, 2019, the Seoul Central District Court has been sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud;

3. 20. The judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Defendant A

A. The criminal defendant against the victim C is one broconer who is acting as a broker by the public corporation, and the victim C from that time to September 2017, around December 2016, the victim C is a traffic restriction between the victim and the victim.

The Defendant had experience in working as a human father at the pre-construction site before the victim’s teaching work with the victim, and did not have only once the volume of the actual construction work as a constructor, but only once, the victim believed the victim to believe that the victim is a de facto constructor by making a false statement that, if the Defendant borrowed a contract deposit for construction work, it would be 15 days after the completion of construction, because it is only a bank that did not have the construction cost while performing construction work for five years, and that the bank directly provides the business entity with the construction cost, and thus, it would receive an unconditional construction cost within 15 days after completion of construction.

1) On December 18, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the coffee shop, an apartment apartment in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju, the Defendant: (b) stated that “The Defendant will pay the principal to the victim up to January 30, 2017, and pay 80 million won of profit within 15 days after the completion of March 30, 2017, if he/she lends KRW 30 million to the owner of the building.”

However, on October 14, 2016, the Defendant had no intention or ability to repay the principal and profit on the date when the Plaintiff received KRW 30 million from the victim and delivered it to the owner of the building or promised to perform the construction work, as it did not resolve the above on-site lien issues, but did not proceed until December 18, 2016.

The defendant.