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.

The defendant had the victim D, the representative director of C, completed the construction of the Daegu Northern-gu E building, and the victim completed the construction.

On March 17, 2008, the victims received a provisional attachment order from the Daegu District Court on March 17, 2008, on the ground that the remainder of construction costs of the above E building is equivalent to KRW 33 million, and provisionally seized No. 107, 1103, Daegu Northern District Court owned by the Defendant, and the same year.

5. On November 21 of the same year, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming construction cost for the remainder of 33 billion won in the Daegu District Court (2008Gahap 5428) against the Defendant and received a favorable judgment against the injured party on November 21 of the same year. The Defendant appealed against it, and paid all the construction cost on December 11 of the same year.

Multi-level situation was administered.

During that process, the Defendant was placed at the position to sell the above apartment to G, a third party, but it was impossible to dispose of the apartment due to the above provisional seizure, and the fact was not possible to dispose of the apartment due to the above provisional seizure, with the intention of resolving the remainder of the construction work by first, without the intention of the victim to settle the provisional seizure.

Accordingly, in the office of the victim in the Daegu Suwon-gu H on January 16, 2009, the defendant would pay the victim the amount of KRW 100 million upon cancellation of provisional seizure and the balance of the Corporation will be paid after the total settlement of accounts.

Of the gold KRW 100 million, KRW 20 million shall be paid on the day, and KRW 80 million shall be paid until February 15, 2009.

The purpose of “the document was to make a false statement and to prepare a written confirmation with such content.”

The Defendant, as above, entered into a contract with G on January 19, 2009 to sell the above apartment amounting to KRW 221 million to a third party immediately after the defect in the application for cancellation of the above provisional attachment on January 19, 2009, by deceiving the victim, and the victim is in its possession.

2. 2. After the cancellation of the provisional attachment registration, G did not carry out the promise as specified in the confirmation even if G had ordered the registration of ownership transfer to G on the 18th of the same month, and the said contract price.