Defendant

A is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the first time of the 2017 Highest 226 case, the first time of the 2017 Highest 226 case, and the second time of the 2017 Highest 226 case.

Punishment of the crime

[2017 Highest 226 [criminal records] Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of eight months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on January 9, 2009, and the judgment was finalized on April 9, 2009. The crime committed before the above final judgment was rendered, and on February 18, 2010, a total of two years and six months ( January 4 and January 2) imprisonment at the Seoul Central District Court was sentenced on August 5, 201 (the paroled on November 30, 2011 and the period of February 24, 2012 during the execution of the parole was expired) and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 28, 2015 after being sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment at the Seoul Central District Court on April 23, 2015.

Defendant

A on August 30, 2016, sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of forging private documents at the Seoul Central District Court, and on February 9, 2017, the Seoul Central District Court was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court, and each of the above judgments was finalized on April 12, 2017.

[Criminal facts]

1. Defendants A as the representative of “F” corporation E, and Defendant B as the representative of “F redevelopment promotion committee”, respectively, participated in the redevelopment project of “F” (hereinafter “Redevelopment project”).

A redevelopment project was implemented in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the 19th parcel. Around May 8, 1998, the redevelopment project was designated as a “market improvement project implementation zone” from the competent authority. Around April 8, 1999, the establishment of the “F Redevelopment Cooperative” (in this case, the president H; hereinafter the “Development Cooperative”) was authorized by the competent authority on the condition of design change, etc., and the project was granted conditional approval from the competent authority on July 26, 2006.

On the other hand, Defendant A prepared a “contract for the implementation of a joint project” with the redevelopment cooperative around November 6, 200, but did not go through the relevant administrative procedure, and thus, Defendant A did not have the status of the joint project executor. Moreover, the redevelopment cooperative withdrawn the application itself for the approval of the implementation of the redevelopment project around January 2, 2007, and thus, the status of the joint project executor.