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

On August 30, 2010, the Defendant had no intention or ability to re-establish the right of collateral in the name of the victim X even if the right of collateral security was terminated by the victim X. However, the Defendant concluded that “I would like to re-establish the right of collateral security as if the former lessee moves into the former lessee at the time of termination of the right of collateral security, because of the right of collateral security in the name of the party established in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu 101 Dong 1003, which is owned by his/her father, the Defendant would have to re-establish the right of collateral security at around August 30, 2010.” Accordingly, the Defendant terminated the right of collateral security by the obligor Y, the mortgagee X, the maximum amount of debt, the maximum amount of debt amount of which was set up against the above Z apartment 101 Dong1003 around August 30, 2010.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired property benefits equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police against X;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a certified copy of the register;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Reasons for sentencing (the scope of recommending punishment) under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the fact that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim) of the suspended execution [the scope of recommending punishment] under types 1 (100 million won or less) (1 to 1 year) of the mitigated area (100 million won) of the General Fraud (1 to 1 year) of the Criminal Act, and two years of suspended execution;