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

On June 20, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the excavation of a grave at the Suwon District Court on October, 2013 and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 28, 2013.

1. On October 2013, the Defendant would have caused the victim C to have two graves located in D at the real estate office located in B during the summering period of Scuju on the part of the Defendant.

In order to find out a grave, 80,000 won shall be changed to the cost of paying a new notice to the newspaper.

“The purpose of “ was to make a false statement.”

However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim, he was thought to use it for the cancellation of provisional seizure due to the defendant's obligation, and there was no intention or ability to make a new notice.

Nevertheless, the defendant was given 80,000 won from the victim, namely, in the name of the public notice expenses.

2. On October 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant, at the real estate office as indicated in paragraph (1) of this Article, deemed the victim to have agreed on the change of a cemetery owner, and changed the amount of KRW 6 million with a dump down payment, to KRW 1 million with a dump payment.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have obtained the consent of this Chapter, and even if he received money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to change the grave because he thought to use the provisional seizure as described in paragraph (1).

Nevertheless, the defendant was given one million won as down payment from the victim's seat.

3. On January 15, 2014, the Defendant changed the remainder of five million won as “the Defendant completed funeral work” to the victim at the office described in paragraph (1) around January 15, 2014.

“The purpose was to make a false statement.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not move to a grave, and even if he received money from the victim, he thought that he would use the provisional attachment cancellation as described in Paragraph 1.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received 500,000 won as a balance from the victim, i.e., the victim.

In this respect.