No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant

(a) b).

ARTICLE 2-A,

ARTICLE 3-

(a).

(c).

one year of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes mentioned above.

Criminal facts

On November 12, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of suspension of execution on March 5, 2011 by imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.).

On November 2009, the Defendant became aware of the Victim E who operated the “D” singing room located in the Jeonsan-gu, Seoul around November 2009.

1. Fraud;

A. On November 2009, the Defendant, in relation to a security deposit for a singing practice room, was at the G Association office located in Yeongsan-gu, Seoul-si, Seoul-si, and the fact that the Defendant could not receive a refund among the security deposit for a singing practice room located in H “H” located in Y-gu, Seoul-si, which was operated by the Defendant, despite the fact, he would offer the said Defendant a security deposit for a singing practice room located in Y-gu, Seoul-si, and then would provide the said Defendant with KRW 30 million of the security deposit for a singing practice room located in Y-si, Seoul-si, and the said Defendant would pay the money within two months if he/she borrowed the money. If he/she did so, he/she would transfer the said security deposit.” On or around December 8, 2009, he/she received KRW 20 million from the victim for the purpose of borrowing money from the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired a total of KRW 30 million from the victim as above.

B. On December 2010, the Defendant involved in the fraud of the viewing subsidy: (a) at any coffee shop located in the Full-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City F, and (b) on June 2008, the Defendant was unable to repay the loan amount of KRW 20 million due to the lack of any particular property or income; (c) from around 2010, the Defendant was unable to report income because there was almost no income in the office of the administrative agency operated, and (d) from around 2010, the deposit from the viewing was not from the previous, and even if it was unclear whether it would be possible to receive the deposit even if it was borrowed from the victim, the Defendant needs to pay the deposit for actual rent.

Subsidies shall be granted for viewing.