Defendants 2016, 630, 2017, 389 are punished by imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in [2016, 2017, 2017, 2017, 114.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On September 1, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud at the Suwon District Court on September 9, 201, and the judgment was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Sungwon District Court on September 9, 201, which was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Sungwon District Court on September 9, 201, but was sentenced to two years and six years of imprisonment with prison labor at the Suwon District Court on Nowon 1465, which was sentenced to two years and three years of suspended execution.

On November 9, 2012, the Seoul Eastern District Court written the written indictment and the written indictment amendment, but is clearly written in the Suwon District Court, and thus corrected.

The Seoul Eastern District Court 201 High 359 sentenced a two-year suspended sentence to one year of imprisonment for a bribe, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 17, 2012. On February 14, 2017, the Suwon District Court 201 High 755, 2012 High 392, 2012 High 52 High 392, 2012 High 523 (Joint), 570 (Joint), 2012 High 2012 High 3131 (Joint), 853 High 2013 (Joint), 2014 High 656 (Joint), 2015 High 328 (Joint), 2016 (Joint) and 207 High 2016 (Joint 2016).

was made.

[Criminal facts] 2016 Gohap 630

1. A person who violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) was a representative director of D Co., Ltd.

On May 6, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim F at the D office located in Sungnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City E. 802, Sungnam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, that “The Defendant changed the right to operate a restaurant to KRW 100 million.”

However, at the time, the Defendant did not agree from H to receive the above on-site restaurant operation right, so the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to grant the above on-site restaurant operation right.

The defendant deceivings the victim to do so.