Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of each of the above penalties shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A As the representative director of G Co., Ltd. and Defendant B as the president of the said Co., Ltd., and the Defendants were operating “I Mana” on December 26, 2013 by leasing 2,3 floors underground in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H Building around December 26, 2013 while the said company was operated as a partnership business.

J entered into a contract to take over the right of lease from the above private sector.

However, the Defendants failed to obtain the consent to take over the right of lease from K of a school foundation, a lessor of the interest on the said building owner. Rather, school foundation K filed a lawsuit against J around January 6, 2014 on the grounds of the deposit, rent, unpaid public charges, etc., and thus, the Defendants were unable to normally operate the said letter of apology.

Meanwhile, as the Defendants were unable to pay the construction cost even after entrusting L with the above shooting or internal construction, the Defendants offered to L with the payment of the construction cost by receiving the security deposit under the name of the Sabya or Sabya, the operation of the Sabya, the oral cleaning, the removal, and the goodwill.

1. On September 25, 2014, Defendant A, as to the victim M, has been introduced from the above Mana, N, and L around September 25, 2014, to the victim M, who was introduced through the above Ma, “The amount of guarantee KRW 35 million, and KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

At present, 10 million won is deposited.

On October 12, 2014, the open date shall be open.

“....” The same content is written and issued to the effect that “...... the Defendant B is the actual strawer of the Plaintiff.”

“.....”

However, the Defendants did not obtain the lessor’s consent on the acquisition of the above private letter or the right of lease. At the time, the Defendants continued to file a lawsuit against the above private letter or the right of lease, and thus, even if they received money from the injured party as a security deposit, the Defendants’ intent and ability to enable the business to be conducted by the lessor from October 12, 2014 in a normal manner.