A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten 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

In order to stabilize the residence of homeless workers with no special security, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport has operated a system of loans for the entire housing rental fund with interest rate lower than the market interest rate if a loan is filed with only certain documents such as a certificate of employment, a statement of salary, etc. without any special security, and a lease contract.

However, the financial institution entrusted with the above loan-related affairs gives a loan to the employee house leasing fund only by the formal examination, and in particular, in the case of workers, it gives a credit loan to the above house leasing fund as a collateral if only the documents related to employment are submitted to the financial institution, which is well known, with the intention of inducing the tenant and the lessor by fraudulent means, preparing a false lease contract and a certificate of employment, etc., and taking it by receiving the employee house leasing fund from the financial institution.

Specifically, the Defendant: (a) recruited, recruited, recruited, and arranged to enter into a false lease agreement; (b) purchased, and provided, as seen above, the leased object; (c) purchased, and provided, as the object of a false lease agreement; (d) prepare false employment certificates, etc. necessary for the loan to become the nominal owner; and (d) submitted a false employment certificate and the lease agreement to a financial institution by submitting to the financial institution, the false lessee G, and H, as a result, submitted the false employment certificate and the lease agreement, etc. from the brokers, such as the above F, etc., to the financial institution; and (d) divided the amount of the employee’s house loan by receiving the employee house loan from the financial institution and divided them into two.

around March 4, 2011, the Defendant was against the owner of the International Association of Nam-gu, Incheon and the Defendant’s 201, 202, etc.