2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 16090, Jan. 1

On July 8, 2014, the Defendant was the representative of C, and the victim D Co., Ltd., who transported the original processing unit of the said Co., Ltd., was unable to receive 6.5 million won transportation charges from C Co., Ltd., and was subject to provisional attachment of the bonds in the Bank of Korea deposit account of C Co., Ltd.

On November 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at the Seoul Western District Court located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Mapo-gu; and (b) on November 30, 2015, the Defendant: (c) did not have the intent or ability to cover the transport cost even with the provisional attachment of the above claim, and (d) paid KRW 2 million immediately on the day of the provisional attachment to E, which is the representative of the victim; and (c) the remainder of two million won by November 30, 2015.

“A false representation was made.”

As above, the defendant deceiving E to have the damaged person file an application for the rescission of provisional attachment of the above claim, thereby having C, a corporation, obtained the pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 4 million from the execution of provisional attachment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Documents concerning the ruling of provisional seizure of claims;

1. Notice (including an application for full withdrawal of an application for provisional seizure and cancellation of its execution);

1. The defendant in the written statement and his defense counsel have the intention and ability to repay at the time of the defendant;

this paper denies the facts alleged and stated.

The following facts or circumstances, which can be acknowledged by each of the above evidence, namely, the Defendant received from the investigative agency to the court at the time a notice of provisional attachment cancellation was given to the bank at the time of this court.

The fact that only the change of circumstances occurred with respect to KRW 2 million has made a statement of change of circumstances and has failed to provide a reasonable explanation to the reasons for failure to pay the remaining KRW 2 million until November 30, 2015 (the above KRW 4 million has not been paid up to the present time), and that there has been a financial capability to pay to C at the time.

There is no obvious material to see that there is nothing in the data submitted by the defendant.