except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[2013 Highest 456] The Defendant operated D (D) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, and the victim E and F, D investors, to preserve the claim for return of investment funds, dividends, etc., the victim E and F, made a provisional seizure of the amount equivalent to KRW 120 million as claimed in D’s land and building in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, D around March 28, 201, and the victim F made a provisional seizure of the amount equivalent to KRW 20 million as claimed in the above real estate around May 30, 201, and it was difficult for the Defendant to obtain a loan of the above real estate as security. Around May 25, 2011, the victim was immediately granted a loan of KRW 300,000,000,0000,000,0000,000 won to the victim, under the pretext of the cancellation of provisional seizure on real estate at Seopo-si, and immediately paid the loan to the victim.

Around that time, the victim F called the same purport as the victim F made a provisional seizure on the above real estate.

To the extent that part of the facts charged does not interfere with the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, the following facts should be revised as appropriate in light of the following evidence. However, according to the appraisal report (No. 241 of the investigation record) prepared on July 19, 201, which was prepared on July 19, 201, the appraised value of the above real estate at the time does not exceed KRW 60 million.

In a situation where financial institutions are able to obtain loans from approximately KRW 450 million from financial institutions, the amount of secured debt established in the above real estate has reached a total amount of KRW 260 million, and the remainder of loans are expected to be used as machinery costs, previous debt settlement, employee's salary, etc., so even if the victims cancel provisional seizure, they are the loans.