Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of Jongno-si and Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and E is the female student of F, the former husband of the defendant.

Around December 1, 2010, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction as to the above C, and on December 2, 2011 at the Seoul Central District Court, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a ruling to recommend reconciliation with the purport that “the Defendant shall pay KRW 1,906,000 per month to E,” and on December 2, 201, the Defendant was likely to be subject to compulsory execution, such as provisional attachment, against the above C and D owned by the Defendant, such as the final and conclusive decision to recommend reconciliation, etc., with a view to escaping from this, he assumed a false debt to G and H, who are the private villages of the above F, and was able to bring the mortgage based on the false debt to the above C and D.

1. The Defendant: (a) on January 30, 2012, despite the absence of the obligation to borrow a loan to G, the Defendant had the Defendant assume the obligation to falsely borrow a loan amount of KRW 300,000,000,00; and (b) on January 31, 2012, on January 31, 2012, registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage establishment with respect to the foregoing C as the obligor I and the mortgagee G.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the creditor by evading compulsory execution by means of bearing false debts.

2. The Defendant, despite the absence of the obligation to borrow from H, bears the obligation to make a false loan of KRW 410,00,000 in total, around June 17, 2013 and June 19, 2013. On June 20, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage with respect to the foregoing C as the claim collection amount of KRW 400,000,000, the debtor, the Defendant, and the mortgagee of the collective security interest.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the creditor by evading compulsory execution by means of bearing false debts.

3. The Defendant: (a) on January 31, 2012, despite the absence of the obligation to borrow a loan to H, the Defendant was obliged to assume the obligation to falsely borrow a loan amount of KRW 300,000,000; and (b) on February 6, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with respect to the foregoing D as a claim-raising amount of KRW 300,000,000,000, the debtor I and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security.

In this respect, the Defendant.