Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and for two years, respectively.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

【Court’s ex officio correction of the written indictment to the extent that the Defendants’ exercise of their defense rights is not substantial.

Defendant

B On October 8, 2009, the Seoul High Court sentenced the two-year imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and sentenced the two-year imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes on February 11, 2010. On October 12, 2011, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the two-year imprisonment with labor for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Central District Court, which became final and conclusive on October 20, 2011. On July 6, 2017, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced one year and six-month imprisonment with labor for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Central District Court and decided on July 14, 2017, and sentenced the first instance court to imprisonment with labor for the recovery period of appeal and the appeal claim, which became final and conclusive on August 13, 2013.

Defendant

On May 7, 2010, A was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 26, 2010.

【Criminal facts】 The Defendants, around May 2, 2008, drafted a contract for removal work with the victim and the victim F, stating to the effect that the Defendants introduced the Defendants as the non-permanent office located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seo-dong, the president of the Dispute Resolution E, and the vice-chairperson of the Dispute Resolution E, and that the Defendant F would change the subcontract for removal work of the Seoul Gangnam-gu G reconstruction Complex.”

However, in fact, the Defendants did not have an intention or ability to subcontract the removal work even if they received money from the injured party because they did not have any authority to prepare the said contract with the victim as a non-related person.

The Defendants, as above, deceiving the victim and received five million won from the injured party on the same day, as well as the delivery of five million won from the injured party on the same day, are added to seven times until April 21, 2009, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table (1).