Defendant

A Imprisonment of 10 months, Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment of 6 months, and each by imprisonment of 6 months.

The application for compensation of this case is dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A uses the name of “G”, and is the president of “H”, and Defendant B is the cohabitant of Defendant A in charge of accounting affairs at Defendant A’s office.

On March 30, 2011, the Defendants shown a joint agreement entered into in the name of H and I with the victim F, at the French office located in the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Ordinanceing to acquire and jointly implement remodeling construction by acquiring the officetel building that is one of the I Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Ordinanceing to complete remodeling construction.”

However, the Defendant did not have been delegated by H representative L to enter into a joint project agreement with the said I for the instant officetel remodeling project, and only entered into a joint project agreement with I for the said I for the remodeling project, and the instant officetel did not take over. Thus, even if the Defendant received the purchase price from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to transfer the registration for the said officetel by carrying out remodeling works.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired, by deceiving the victim, entered into a sales contract for the above officetels 501 and 503 on the same day, and received 50 million won in cash from tin in the name of down payment and intermediate payment, and acquired the property of the victim.

Defendant

B asserts that the above crime is the sole criminal conduct of Defendant A, but the F has no problem of “Defendant B” contract from the investigative agency to this court consistently.

In light of the fact that Defendant B made a statement to the purport, and that Defendant B made a detailed statement to the investigative agency on the process of concluding the above contract, it appears that he actively participated in the above contract process, rather than merely conducting accounting work.