Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B On October 21, 2015, the Busan District Court was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for embezzlement, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 24, 2015.

From November 12, 2012, Defendants were working as the representative director of the F&A corporation established in E from the viewpoint of Leecheon-si.

On July 12, 2013, the Defendants entered into a contract with the victim G and the victim’s father H to sell at KRW 190 million the M (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by Leecheon-si, J, K, and Defendant A’s L (hereinafter “instant land”) and paid KRW 50 million the down payment from the damaged party. On July 15, 2013, the Defendants promised to cancel the right to collateral security established on the instant land when the victim pays the victim the balance of KRW 140 million.

However, when money was urgently needed, the Defendants did not have the ability to cancel the right to collateral security established on the instant land, but, if the victims were to do so, deducted KRW 100 million from the balance of the purchase and sale of the instant land from the balance of the purchase and sale of the instant land. As such, the Defendants deceptiond the victim as if the right to collateral security established on the instant land could be cancelled, thereby raising the balance of the purchase and sale of the instant land to receive advance payment.

Defendants, at around August 2013, at the O's office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul N, would give the victim's father H an amount calculated by deducting the remaining balance of KRW 70 million from KRW 140,000,000,000 from KRW 100,000,000.

First of all, the right to collateral security established on the land of this case must be cancelled.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the Defendants thought that they would use the money that they received from the injured party as investment funds for the purchase of restaurant operation rights by Defendant A’s personal living expenses or Defendant B’s box, and at the time, they received money from the Defendants.