However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On January 8, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of suspension of execution on October 6, 2016, due to interference with business affairs, etc. in the Daegu District Court’s support, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 6, 2016.

The Defendant is a person who has managed Etel owned by the victim D while operating “C”, a real estate transaction, lease, or management company.

The Defendant sold F and three parcels of land to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), at the same time, the Defendant knew that the new apartment construction project did not proceed without obtaining the consent to the use of H’s land, the owner of adjacent land, and did not receive the remainder of KRW 7 billion out of the purchase price of the land. On February 21, 2014, the Defendant need to obtain the consent to use the land from the Defendant from the Plaintiff from the Indong Agricultural Co., Ltd. located in Ansan-dong, Ansan-si, Dong-si, Seoul, to obtain the consent to use the land from H.

On the other hand, it is possible to use the amount of money necessary for the waterway as the rain funds so that it can receive any balance with the consent to use the land, and G grants 700 million won at the expense of obtaining the consent to use the land, so it is intended to return the money received to use it as the rain funds.

“A false statement”;

7. 9. In short, around September 1, the victim “I, the president of H, accepted the use of land, but the Minister of Administration, the Director of the Administrative Office, demands more than KRW 300,000,000.

“A false representation was made.”

However, there was no idea that the Defendant would deliver money to H-related persons for royalties, even if receiving money from the injured party, it was thought that the Defendant would use it as a personal real estate business fund without using it for obtaining the consent to use the land, and it was an abstract statement that he would give the prime cost and a specific amount with the consent to use the land in G, and there was no fact that the J, the head of H administration office, did not demand KRW 300 million.

Nevertheless, the defendant belongs to this.