The request of the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

The Defendant purchased approximately KRW 7,00 of forest land E in the name of Leecheon-si, Inc., a movable business entity with the planning title, and completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security of KRW 300 million with the maximum amount of KRW 600 million with respect to the forest land as the beneficiary of the right to collateral security, on November 5, 2008, G designated by F as the beneficiary of the right to collateral security of KRW 600 million with respect to the above forest land as the beneficiary of the right to collateral security of KRW 300,000 with the maximum amount of KRW 30,000 with the claim amount of KRW 30,000,000, as the beneficiary of the right on the same day.

On November 2009, the Defendant would cancel the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security after the completion of the remainder payment and release all of the seizure from the attachment when purchasing 2,314 square meters of the 2,314 square meters of the 4,078 square meters to the victim C at the D office located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

“.......”

However, the Defendant had no particular income or property at the time, was unable to pay the employee's benefits early and was under economic circumstances to the extent of delinquency in tax payment. Since there was a high possibility of voluntary auction due to the Defendant's failure to pay the borrowed money from F, even if he received the remainder from the injured party, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to cancel the right to collateral security and to release the seizure.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received the total sum of KRW 189 million from the victim to the new bank account of Co., Ltd., D on December 17, 2009, KRW 60 million, KRW 62 million on January 7, 2010, and KRW 67 million on January 2010.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of the police statement protocol law to C

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Reasons for sentencing of Article 25(3)3, Article 32(1), and Article 22(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits to Dismiss an Application for Compensation Order (the scope of liability for damages is not clear) [the scope of recommendation penalty] general fraud.