Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Punishment of the crime

In collusion with the Defendants, at the residence of the Victim G (Seoul, 56 years old) located in the Sinsan City F, on January 2010, the Defendants conclude that even if they received money from the victims, they did not have the intent or ability to make profits through a design change and to deliver the proceeds to the victims, Defendant A may make profits through a construction work. Defendant B shows the construction drawings equivalent to 1.5 billion won in detail, and Defendant B may be deemed as a 2.5 billion won construction through a design change, and Defendant B may be deemed as a 1.5 billion won construction through a 1.5 billion won construction through a 1.5 billion won design change. In short, Defendant B made a false statement to the effect that it would divide profits from the construction work into profits from the loan of money to the victim.

6. 9. The delivery of five million won and the same year;

8. Upon receipt of remittance of KRW 5 million on July 2, 25, and remittance of KRW 10 million on July 2 of the same year, the remittance of KRW 20 million on July 20 of the same year was made, and KRW 30 million on November 10 of the same year was remitted, and acquired KRW 35 million on seven occasions on November 26 of the same year by remittance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. Each legal statement of a witness A and B;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Loan certificates, etc.;

1. A detailed statement of passbook transactions;

1. Application of each Act and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records;

1. Relevant legal provisions and the Defendants’ choice of punishment regarding criminal facts: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Defendants and defense counsel’s assertion and determination of imprisonment with labor

1. The defendants Gap asserted that although they used the above money, they did not deceiving the victim like the facts of the crime.

Defendant

B argues that it is true that Defendant A’s words are the same as the facts of the crime, and that there is no intention of deception and deception.

2. The determination is based on the aforementioned evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court as follows.