Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, as to the defendants for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the defendants are above.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the person who was the representative director of FEO and the defendant B of F corporation.

1. Defendant A’s sole crime committed by Defendant A committed an act of receiving investment money from the victim G who was known to the general public under the name of the main complex apartment and Chinese business around 2007, but it failed to return the investment money because it did not run properly. Defendant A received money from the victim G with the intent that it can only return the investment money to the victim before it if it additionally invests money in the H shopping complex development project.

Accordingly, Defendant A, at around October 23, 2009, at the F Office, located in the fifth floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul International Building in Gangnam-gu Seoul, there is a “H shopping complex development project” to the victim, and our company participates in the joint executory agency. He will be given the right to sell to the party. The deposit should be 20 million won. It is only KRW 20 million as contract deposit and the remainder KRW 180 million as contract deposit will be deposited into the trust company if the project is organized, and it is safe because it will be deposited into the trust company. It is also possible to pay the damages previously.” In relation to the above project, the “H complex sales agency contract” with the content that grants the right to sell in lots to the victim is prepared and presented to the victim.

However, Defendant A could be designated as the priority negotiation object for the implementation of the “H shopping complex development project” on November 28, 2009, where the victim made the said remarks, and even upon being designated as the priority negotiation object, Defendant A could enter into a joint enforcement agreement under the name of the committee for promotion of cooperatives after the retirement of the current executive department and the establishment of the committee for promotion of cooperatives at the general meeting of the entire members. As such, Defendant A, as well as the vicarious sales agent, was not influent, and the money received from the victim was considered to be used as the company’s operating expenses.