However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On August 8, 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim E to transfer the existing construction work part of the said housing construction work for which the victim was willing between the victim E at the site of a multi-household D multi-family housing construction in Gyeonggi-do, and the future construction work right for KRW 450 million. On October 7, 2011, the Defendant entered into a loan certificate with the content of paying KRW 450 million as stated in the above transfer contract.

According to the above contract, the victim had the above KRW 450,00,000 as the preserved bond, and had the F land and its ground buildings G, H land, and its ground buildings I (hereinafter “Seizure”) owned by the Defendant, which were subject to provisional seizure by the Speaker District Court 2012Ka 50189 (hereinafter “provisional seizure of this case”).

On April 9, 2012, the Defendant, at the notary public K office located in 506 of the building J at the Government-Si around the Government-Si around April 9, 2012, falsely stated that “The Defendant would cancel the instant provisional seizure and sell the 16 households G G 16 and I9 households in total, and transfer them within three months after filing an individual registration.”

However, under the Building Act, the above buildings were unable to make an individual registration for each unit, and the defendant did not take any measures, even if the victim had no intent to make an individual registration for the above seized real estate even if the provisional seizure of this case was cancelled, and there was no intention or ability to repay the above preserved real estate.

Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above and requiring the victim to cancel the provisional attachment of this case on April 9, 2012, the Defendant acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 450 million of the preserved claim for the provisional attachment of this case; (b) thereby, the Defendant acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 450 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Entry of witnesses and E in the second public trial records, and entry of witnesses M in the fifth public trial records;

1. A contract of supply, a price list, a loan certificate, a written determination, and a certificate;