Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of eight months.

However, as to Defendant B, this shall not apply.

Punishment of the crime

From March 3, 2010, Defendants entered into a check contract with the Seoul Central Federation of Nonghyup and Defendant B from March 3, 2010, and have traded the check number per unit.

On September 18, 2010, the Defendants served as Defendant B’s name “Fabide president” and issued one copy of the check number “E”, “18,00,000,000”, and one copy of the number of shares per Agricultural Cooperative under the name of Defendant B, which became the blank of the date of issuance.

On December 26, 2010, the date of issuance of the check was supplemented by the person who presented the check, and on December 27, 2010, the check was presented to the bank at issue.

However, the Defendants did not pay for the suspension of transaction.

From September 18, 2010 to November 30, 2010, the Defendants conspired to issue 168,000,000 won each, as indicated in the attached list of crimes, from around September 18, 2010 to around November 30, 201, and each check was presented within the payment proposal period by the person who presented the payment proposal, but the Defendants failed to pay each check on the grounds of the suspension of transaction.

Attached Form

The date of issuance No. 3 of the crime sight table No. 3 appears to be the date of " February 17, 2011", and " January 27, 2010" on the date of payment proposal is the clerical error in the book of January 27, 2011.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Protocol concerning the suspect examination of the defendant B by the prosecution;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds that the suspension of execution (Defendant B) is more than Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the lease of only name is taken into account);