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

On January 2, 2017, the Defendant was a director of “B” company in India, and was asked by C [In the Daegu District Public Prosecutor’s Office on April 24, 2017, a charge of detention from the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) to help the victim to reach an agreement with “D Co., Ltd.” in relation to the instant case, and was presented as if the victims were to pay a large amount of 00 million won in return for the victim, and received the withdrawal of the complaint. On the other hand, around September 2, 2015, the Defendant terminated the right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 1.5 billion of the maximum debt amount set up for the F Underground Floor in Singu, with respect to the Defendant’s steel transaction.

Accordingly, the Defendant, around February 21, 2017, prepared a “notarial deed of debt repayment contract” in the office of H law firm, and in an amount equivalent to KRW 370 million, at the office of H law firm, the Defendant offered the victim a payment of KRW 40 million to the victim until March 20, 2017, by providing the victim with a false agreement to cancel the said product with the effect that, on March 31, 2017, a notary public who had been supplied with a “D” corporation as collateral and sold the said product at the end of KRW 30,000,000 from April 30, 2017 to June 30, 2017, the Defendant provided the victim with a false agreement to cancel the said product as collateral, with the amount of KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000 to KRW 3330,000,000.

However, the Defendant did not have any specific property at the time and did not have the intent or ability to pay to the victim the amount equivalent to KRW 370 million for the Daegu Prosecutors’ Criminal Procedure according to the “notarial deeds on debt repayment contract”. The Defendant was merely the victim.