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 was the owner of the building that was the owner of the building that was parked in Namyang-si, Namyang-si (the change to D and E around September 2012, and the change to F on May 21, 2013, the change to G and H on December 31, 2013), and I was the person who was in charge of building frame and civil engineering works, and the victim J was in charge of the above building parking lot painting works, and the victim J was the person who was in charge of the above building parking lot painting works, while the victim was unable to receive construction cost of KRW 67 million, the Defendant was requested by D as the owner of the above building, around April 2013, to resolve the lien problem of the above building.

around 10:20 on April 18, 2013, the Defendant shown a written agreement with the victim that “A would not pay KRW 300 million to A as the lien price, the power of delegation of lien issued by I to A, and the waiver of the lien,” while the Defendant received KRW 300 million from the owner of the building and paid the construction price to I.

I will receive KRW 300 million and divide it to the lien holder.

In that sense, I would like to obtain KRW 300 million, and I would like to prepare to B the power of attorney and the certificate of waiver of the right of retention. I would like to request B to sign on the power of attorney and the certificate of waiver of the right of retention.

However, fact is that the defendant paid KRW 100 million to the defendant as expenses for the settlement of the right of retention between D and D, and if the defendant solves the right of retention less than KRW 100 million, there was an agreement that the defendant would have the remaining amount as expenses for the settlement of the right of retention. Since the amount in the letter of confirmation on the waiver of the right of retention was stated as KRW 15 million without the consent of the injured party, it was thought that D would deliver it to D, and therefore, he did not have an intention or ability to receive KRW 30 million from the owner or KRW 37 million from the owner of the right of the damaged party's claim for the construction payment (after the defendant, KRW 40 million from D through F.