A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of the (ju) E, software development company located in the fourth floor of the building in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim F is between the defendant and the high school.

【The state of mistake of the victim】 The victim transferred the funds of KRW 100,000 of the G 10,000 to E on July 10, 2014 (State) as if he/she paid the service charges, and then returned the remaining KRW 86,00,000 after deducting the value-added tax, etc. from the Defendant.

(State) Around November 24, 2014, the succeeding representative director H of G alleged the above KRW 100 million against the Seoul Central District Court (State) as unjust enrichment and filed a civil lawsuit seeking the return of the above KRW 100 million, and received a favorable judgment in the first instance court around May 29, 2015.

(State) On August 6, 2015, H received a seizure and collection order for the bank deposit claims of E around August 6, 2015 by the provisional execution order. A person who became aware of the seizure around that time remitted KRW 11,3310,00 to the Defendant as the deposit money to release the seizure around August 13, 2015 at the Defendant’s request.

The defendant paid to the defense counsel KRW 20 million out of KRW 113,310,00,000, which was remitted, used as a deposit to suspend the execution of the above collection order, and used the remainder for other purposes, such as remitting money to female-friendly organizations, but did not notify the victim of such fact.

As a result, the victim caused the error that the defendant used the full amount of KRW 110,310,000 as deposit money to cancel seizure.

【The Defendant committed the crime of defraudation】 Even though he used the total amount of KRW 110,310,000 in order to cancel seizure by taking advantage of the above erroneous state of the victimized person, he was unaware of the additional money by deceiving the court as if the court did not cause any decision

The Defendant is in the vicinity of the office around September 4, 2015.