1. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and six months, and Defendant B by imprisonment for two years; and

2.Provided, That this ruling shall have become final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant A, on December 18, 2014, is a person who was sentenced to two years of the suspended sentence of ten months on the grounds of interference with the performance of official duties in the Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong Housing Site on December 18, 2014, and such judgment became final and conclusive on December 27, 2014.

[Criminal facts] Defendant A is the president of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Commercial Building (hereinafter “the main commercial building”) association, and Defendant B is the representative director of the G Co., Ltd. who was prepared to implement the reconstruction project of the main commercial building.

The Defendants, at around October 2007, at the main commercial building office of Defendant B, Defendant A, at the location of Defendant B, planned to reconstruct the victim H as the victim H’s “the head of the I commercial partnership, which is the head of Guro-gu I commercial partnership, after removing the I commercial building and J commercial building, with the four underground floors equivalent to 13 billion won of the construction contract amount, and the 10th above ground.

The B president (Defendant B) in the next place is the representative of the reconstruction construction executor.

In this regard, 80 million won out of the funds required for the purchase of shares by the owners of existing commercial buildings shall be paid 8 billion won, and a letter of consent to use shall be issued, the reconstruction work shall commence within six months, but it has not been prepared 80 million won.

In addition, it is expected that the portion of public land will be purchased by using the 300 million won of the loan as the down payment, the loan of the PF to pay KRW 300,000,000, and the construction work of the reconstruction work amounting to KRW 12-1,30,000,000.

“.....”

However, at the time of fact, the re-building approval was not granted by the competent authority, and the re-building schedule or plan was not established, and the situation where K, etc. invested in the Defendants, returned the investment funds to the Defendants, and the Defendants did not have the ability to secure the funds necessary for the co-owners' purchase of shares in the absence of any specific funds to operate the partnership office. Therefore, they tried to use the said funds received from the victims for the return of the investment funds or the operation of the partnership office.