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.

On December 2, 2009, the Defendant filed a complaint against D Co., Ltd. at a place where it is impossible to identify the location of the Defendant.

With respect to land E located under the name ofper, the false statement was made that “to terminate the right to collateral security by repaying the damage within one year from the establishment of the right to collateral security to D Co., Ltd.”

However, at the time, the Defendant did not have any particular property, and there was no specific method or plan to terminate the right of collateral by repaying the secured obligation, so even if the victim was to establish the right of collateral, there was no intention or ability to terminate the right of collateral.

On December 23, 2009, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, had the victim acquire pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount by allowing D Co., Ltd. to set up a right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 198 million with respect to land E located in Guri-si owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the prosecutor's statement protocol to C;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order [the scope of recommended punishment] In light of the following: (a) type 2 (at least KRW 100 million, but less than KRW 500 million) in the mitigation area (from October to February 6); (b) the amount obtained by deceit and the amount of damage; and (c) the amount of repayment or compensation for damage, etc., the liability for the crime is not absolute.

However, after the conclusion of the argument in this case, the defendant expressed his/her intention that he/she does not want to be punished against the defendant by agreement with the victim.

In addition, the Criminal Code is amended.