However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Around November 13, 2009 with the victim C and the defendant agreed to operate a restaurant in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City. The victim provided a place, such as a building and land, and the defendant agreed to distribute the amount to be distributed according to mutual ratio if he gains profit from operating the restaurant. When it is anticipated that the amount to be distributed is not much much because profits are not high on the above restaurant, the defendant applied for an order for payment, etc. against the victim, and the documents related to the lawsuit did not serve the victim with a final and conclusive judgment of winning the lawsuit, thereby having the victim won a compulsory execution against the property owned by the victim, thereby having the victim gain pecuniary profit equivalent to the profit.

1. On June 25, 2013, the Defendant applied for a payment order related to unjust enrichment with a case number of 2013 tea7588 at the Incheon District Court in Incheon District Court, and with the Defendant’s claim amount of KRW 43,561,978, the Defendant applied for a payment order with the content that “The net profit in operating the E in a partnership has not been distributed even if the net profit was transferred to KRW 87,123,957, and 50% of the above profit was returned to unjust enrichment.”

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant and the victim did not yet settle the profit and did not know whether there was a net profit in E, and even if there was such net profit.

Even from May 2010 to April 2013, the Defendant already transferred the amount equivalent to 65,358,000 won of net profits to one’s head of the Tong or a third party’s head of the Tong under the name of benefit, and thus, no longer could a claim for distribution of profits against the victim. Moreover, the victim could not claim for distribution of profits against the victim since he visited the said E-cafeteria only once more than twice a month, and even if the mail was served on the said restaurant, even if it was served on the said restaurant, the victim was residing in the said E-cafeteria, even though the Defendant did not manage and deliver it.