The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On May 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at the office of DD located in the window of Changwon-si, Changwon-si; (b) at the office of D; (c) at the office of the Defendant’s (ju), the victim G, who subcontracted construction works to build a new building located in F in Korea located in the Republic of Korea, located in E, which was located in the territory of the Defendant’s (ju) E; (d) around April 7, 2015, the former owner of the claim for construction payment against D; and (e) set a provisional attachment of the claim amount of KRW 30 million against subparagraph 103 of the first floor of the said building; and (e) the victim’s “in order to obtain a loan from a financial institution as security of the fourth floor of the said building, a loan is not granted if a provisional attachment is made in another head office of the said building.

In order to cancel the provisional seizure of 103th floor of the above building, the provisional seizure of 103th floor of the above building was received from financial institutions as collateral, and the loan was made by the financial institution up to June 30, 2015, the amount of KRW 18 million shall be paid in a direct payment, and (ju) the payment of the unpaid construction cost shall be made to D and (ju) the payment of KRW 12 million shall be made to D.

However, the facts are that ( state) E was in excess of the obligation at the time, and the Defendant was urged to repay KRW 300 million in the process of purchasing the above building site at the time, and thus, the above provisional seizure was cancelled, and it was thought that the Defendant would have received a loan as security from the fourth floor of the above building and repaid it. Thus, even if the provisional seizure was cancelled from the injured party, the Defendant did not have the intent and ability to pay the amount of money promised as above until June 30, 2015.

On May 21, 2015, the Defendant received the above provisional seizure from the injured party and acquired the pecuniary profit of KRW 30 million equivalent to the claim amount of provisional seizure.

2. Determination

A. Review of the records of this case reveals the following facts.

1) On April 25, 2015, the Defendant Company E (hereinafter “E”) whose representative director is the representative director is D Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) that is a contracting party for the new construction of the building (hereinafter “new construction of the instant building”) indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant construction”).