Around August 1, 2011, the Defendant: “A movable property in the telecom shall be appraised as KRW 15 million on the provisionally attached corporeal movable property in the telecom as it was provisionally seized around July 6, 2011, because F did not communicate under the circumstance that F was the owner of the telecom, or as the lease deposit of KRW 15,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was paid for the expenses of the director, the corporeal movable property shall be handed over, and as of September 1, 201, the director shall be ordered to exchange the telecom.”

After that, around August 10, 2011, the Defendant: (a) on the part of the enforcement officer H affiliated with the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch, a notary public under the delegation by the creditor I of the enforcement officer of the 2010 Document 52 on the part of the creditor H, sent all movable property to the victim on August 12, 201, and sent the wall so that the corporeal movable property, which was a corporeal movable property, seized by the Defendant under the 2010 Deed 52 of the 2010 Deed, may be carried out from August 15, 2011, with the attachment execution on 30 TV, TV, 4, cooling, 34, cremation, 30, 30, cremation, 30, so that the Defendant may carry out the business from August 15, 201.”

However, when the defendant had the corporeal movables provisionally seized by another creditor subject to seizure according to the delegation of execution by other creditors, it was thought that the defendant received the money from the victim without notifying the victim, and then did not have the intent or ability to deliver the corporeal movables within the Mour to the victim without legal problems.

As can be seen, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim from August 12, 201 to August 15, 201, is the same as the delivery of corporeal movables.