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

Criminal facts

around August 2015, the Defendant received payment from victims E as investment money while operating the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Co., Ltd. in the seventh floor of the building.

Around March 2016, the Defendant agreed to return KRW 50,000,000,000 to the effect that the Defendant would pay KRW 50 million to the victim. However, the Defendant continued to return KRW 50,000 to the Seoul Eastern District Court on May 20, 2016, and the victim would be the Defendant as the Defendant at the Seoul East Eastern District Court on the following day: (a) around May 20, 2016, the Defendant applied for provisional attachment of KRW 50,000,000 as the Defendant’s claim for the return of the amount of investment; and (b) on June 8, 2016, the Defendant was issued a provisional attachment order by the said court on June 8, 2016.

On October 2016, the Defendant would sell the above real estate to the Defendant at auction unless he/she pays the money to the Plaintiff by one of the parties who are the right holder of the real estate that was subject to provisional attachment.

section 3.

L L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. only for provisional seizure

section 3.

First of all, the provisional attachment to pay KRW 10 million is to be rescinded only at all.In the future, I would like to lend money to Dogn and cancel the right to collateral security with money to Dogn and then make it possible for Dogn to establish a provisional attachment again.

The secured debt amount of the above real estate will be maintained as a total of KRW 471 million as at present, so that it does not interfere with the recovery of the claim.

“A false representation was made.”

However, in fact, when the provisional seizure of the victim was cancelled, the defendant thought that the above real estate was sold to G, and the debt was already exceeded due to the amount of several hundred million won, so even if the victim was released from provisional seizure, he did not have the intent or ability to re-establish the provisional seizure or to pay the requested amount.

Nevertheless, the defendant, who belongs to it, has the victim around October 19, 2016.