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

(e).

The defendant is the operator of "E" in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do. The defendant is the operator of "E".

Based on 140,989,900 won of the goods price claim against the defendant, the victim FF obtained the court's decision of provisional seizure of real estate on February 13, 2014 and provisionally attached E land and factory buildings owned by the defendant on the same day.

On March 17, 2014, the Defendant, at the above E Office, drafted a letter of undertaking, stating that “I would sell real estate to the victim upon the cancellation of provisional seizure and repay 30 million won without any condition, regardless of the amount of the sale price.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to repay to the victim according to the promise.

On March 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) thereby, had the victim exempted compulsory execution against the said real estate on a provisional attachment; and (c) obtained the pecuniary benefits of delaying the fulfillment of the obligation to pay for the said goods.

"2015 Highest 1094" Defendant is a person operating "E" in Ulsan-gu North Korea, Ulsan-gu.

The injured party G applied for provisional attachment of the land and factory buildings of the above company in the amount of KRW 30,330,000 against the defendant in the Ulsan District Court, and received the provisional attachment order on November 18, 2013.

On March 21, 2014, around 12:00, the Defendant drafted a notarial deed stating that “A notary public of Ulsan-gu H and the second floor H and the second floor, in the office of law firm I, would have money to be received from the original J. It would receive money equivalent to the amount of credit from the J. It would receive money equivalent to the amount of a provisional attachment. It would be necessary to prepare a notarial deed on the amount of a claim for provisional attachment, and would request the release of provisional attachment on the company’s land and building.”

However, in fact, the J has argued against the defendant's payment of the construction cost, and the creditors of the defendant were provisionally seized against the defendant's claim for the construction cost against J.

In addition, the defendant is not able to pay the price to the supplier.