Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

However, as to the Defendants, this is against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A and C’s joint criminal defendant A obtained a building permit for an automobile liquefied petroleum gas filling station (hereinafter “LPG filling station”) on three pages, including Hanam-si, Hanam-si, which is a development restriction zone, on September 2, 2014. Defendant C is a person residing in Hanam-si from the time of designation of the development restriction zone. Defendant C is a person residing in Hanam-si from the time of designation of the development restriction zone, and a person who intends to operate a liquefied petroleum gas filling business within the development restriction zone must reside in the relevant region from the time of designation of the development restriction zone.

Defendant

around April 2012 to May 5, 2012, A heard the phrase “A will obtain gas charging permission if he/she purchases three parcels of land, such as Hanam-si G,” from K (the custody indictment on November 2, 2015) that operates “J-authorized brokerage” at Hanam-si, and Defendant C thought to obtain gas charging permission within the development restriction zone at Hanam-si, and around June 2012, he/she thought that “I will lend the name of 50 million won in return for the lending of the charging business.”

Accordingly, Defendant A purchased three parcels of land, including Hanam-si G, L, and M around that time, and Defendant C conspiredd to submit an application, etc. in the name of Defendant C, as he/she had an intent to operate a LPG charging lawsuit on the said land, as he/she met the requirements for residence.

Defendant C followed: (a) around June 29, 2012, Defendant C followed the procedure for filing an application for permission, such as submitting an application for permission as if he/she was operating a LPG charging lawsuit at the Cheongnam-si public service center of the Hanam-si, the Hanam-si, the Hanam-si, the Hanam-si, the Hanam-si, the Hanam-si, and (b) let a public official in charge of not knowing the fact select Defendant C as an entrepreneur; and (c) obtained permission for the construction of LPG charging station in the name of Defendant C on September 2,

As a result, the Defendants conspired with K and interfered with the duties of the public official in charge of the Cheongnam-si to select the small charging businessman and the permission for the construction of the filling station.

2. Defendant B. The Defendant