A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the owner of the 4th floor building in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu.

The Defendant, around May 2, 201, at the E-style Brokerage Office located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on May 2, 201, there are many tenants in preference to the above officetels protected by the Housing Lease Protection Act, or at least KRW 400,00,00,000, the instant officetel was in arrears with the penalty surcharge of the said officetel, and the instant officetel was deemed to have sufficient security for the deposit for the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis, and it is most likely that the instant officetel had sufficient security for the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis. The Defendant would be able to solve all the registered and seized parts regarding the “Seoul-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office No. 202, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office No. 202. Upon entering into a lease contract

“A false statement to the effect that the instant officetel 202 entered into a real estate lease agreement between the victim and the victim with respect to the instant officetel 202, between the amount of deposit for the lease on a deposit basis and the lease period from June 10, 2011 to June 9, 2013.

However, with respect to the above officetels at the time, the first priority holder of the right to collateral security (the maximum amount of KRW 481,00,000) was the creditor of the non-mortgaged credit union (the maximum amount of KRW 657,000,000) and eight lessee of the self-determination date (the total amount of KRW 657,000,000). On February 2, 2011, the attachment registration (registration by the disposition on default of a penalty surcharge of KRW 400,000) of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (the attachment by the disposition on default), and the compulsory execution procedure due to default of national and local taxes amounting to KRW 150,00,000,000 in total, under the circumstances where the successful bid price is formed at a lower price than the market price of real estate in the auction procedure, and the defendant did not have any intention or ability to return the deposit to the victim even if there was no certain income or property, and the contract between the victim and the victim was expired.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.