A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

1. On December 2014, the Defendant: (a) committed early December 2, 2014, the Defendant, as an actual operator of the Company B, issued a payment guarantee of KRW 30 billion in the amount of KRW 30 billion to the victim E and the staff F of the company, referring to the following purport: (b) “The title of the branch office of the Overseas Bank G branch office of the Overseas Bank G may be issued to the victim E and the employee F, who had a right to a forest equivalent to KRW 7 billion in Gangwon-do Won-do, as the actual operator of the Company B on December 2, 2014.”

However, the Defendant did not know well the head of the above branch office G of the foreign exchange bank, and did not have any special ability to receive the payment guarantee, and even if receiving the payment guarantee from the injured party, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to receive the payment guarantee as agreed.

Therefore, the Defendant received from the injured party the transfer of KRW 2 million on December 4, 2014, and KRW 28 million on December 11, 2014 to the above corporation B’s account.

2. On December 19, 2014, the Defendant committed a crime on December 19, 2014, at the underground level I of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government HH (Seoul), to the Victim E and staff F of the Victim D Co., Ltd. on December 19, 2014, “The failure to receive the payment guarantee is made by the branch office mix the contents of the business.”

It is necessary to solve the problem when the internal amount of capital is 5 billion won.

Along with the approval of the withdrawal, a person may fully pay and lend 1.5 billion won with the approval of the withdrawal. The purport was that “a person shall lend KRW 5 million with the approval of the withdrawal.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any special property, and even if he did not have any intention or ability to lend 1.5 billion won to the victim as agreed, even if he did not receive the funds from the injured party, because it was not possible to arbitrarily dispose of 5 billion won.

Thus, the defendant belongs to this.