When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On August 18, 2014, the Defendant had known that he had been liable to the Victim B, and the victim had attached the amount equivalent to 34,200,000 won to the real estate located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon District Court (2014Kadan101920) owned by the Defendant’s Dong C on the provisional attachment order of the Incheon District Court on August 18, 2014.

On January 30, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim in the Michuhol-gu Incheon E building F of the Michuhol-gu Incheon E building, stating, “The Defendant would make payment in installments in 500,000 won per month from March 11, 2015 to March 11, 2015.” The Defendant drafted an agreement stating the same.

However, at the time of fact, the defendant had already been liable to pay 50 million won or more to the victim in addition to the victim, and the victim had no particular occupation and had no intention or ability to pay 135 million won even if the provisional attachment was cancelled according to the above agreement.

Nevertheless, on January 30, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim cancel the provisional seizure at the Incheon District Court, and had C, a third party obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 34.2 million of the claim amount of provisional seizure.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. A report (a written judgment and an application for provisional seizure of real estate), a copy of the judgment, and an application for provisional seizure of real estate;

1. According to the records of this case, the persons preparing a notarial deed, a notarial deed, and a certified copy of the register (No. 3 to 5) [the records of this case No. 2] are attorneys G who are attorneys-at-law as complainants, and the above complainants did not recognize the authenticity thereof at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial. As such, the written complaint is inadmissible as hearsay evidence (see Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). When it is proved that the evidence which has already completed the examination of evidence is inadmissible, the written complaint may be ruled to exclude evidence (Article 139(4) of the