Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the defendant B is above two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants, as they subcontracted the interior work among D major repair and new construction works in the Namyang-si, Namyang-do, knew F, a staff member in charge of the victim E, who is the victim E, to receive the deposit money from the victim company and to acquire it.

According to the above mother, Defendant B acquired the land in KRW 10 billion from H Co., Ltd. in the office of the victim company located in Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City Maritime Daegu G on March 2015 from the above F F, “The value of the land is equivalent to the original KRW 15 billion in Namyang-si, Seoul Metropolitan City, and H Co., Ltd acquired the land in KRW 10 billion.

The construction contract with I and I have been completed, and the PF loan has also been approved.

It stated that it will make a major repair and new construction, and that it will make a subcontract to E, a corporation with the amount of KRW 30 million for deposit money of KRW 4 billion.

Defendant

A For the same year

4. Around 13. Around 13.m., at a coffee shop where the trade name in Songpa-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City diving could not be known, the victim company was guaranteed to participate in part of the aforementioned D major repair and new construction, and the victim company was paid deposit money in KRW 30 million from the victim company.

The Defendants were remitted through the above F to the victim company’s deposit account in the foreign exchange bank account in the name of the said H on the same day from the victim company through the said F.

However, at the time, the above H did not have acquired the above D building and its site, and there was no confirmation of the financial institution’s pF loans for large-scale repair and new construction works. The financial situation, such as the said D’s large-scale repair and new construction works, did not have any intent or ability to normally perform the said D’s large-scale repair and new construction works, and accordingly, there was no intention or ability to subcontract the said D’s artificial construction works to the victim company.

Accordingly, the Defendants are the defendants.