A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 22, 2011, the Defendant: (a) at the real estate brokerage office in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government’s 1st floor victim D, the Defendant was unable to secure the right of retention from the existing lien holders in the process of occupying the building in Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant building”); and (b) even if the Defendant was unable to secure the right of retention from the existing lien holders, he was unable to secure the right of retention, the Defendant secured the right of retention on the E building in Namyang-si; (c) if the Defendant leased the construction work, such as the electrical construction work, the Defendant would have secured the right of retention on the E building in Namyang-gu; and (d) if he leased the construction cost of KRW 80,000,000,000,000, interest amount of KRW 60,000 after three months, the Defendant was remitted from the victim’s account in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

2. On May 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the office of the Defendant located on the fourth floor of the instant building; (b) in order for the Defendant and the existing lien holders to stop electricity and suspend water supply by filing a civil petition with the owner of the instant building in the Han River, etc. while occupying the instant building, the Defendant was requested by the victim F who moved into the third floor of the said building and operated the church to resolve the problem because the number and electricity is too difficult; and (c) as described in paragraph (1), the Defendant was willing to use the right of retention from the existing lien holder for repayment of other liability and urgent living expenses even if he did not receive money from the victim; and (d) the victim did not have the intent or ability to use the money for the construction cost of the said building; and (e) the victim did not have any intention or ability to use it for the construction cost of the said building; and (e) the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the bank in the name of the Defendant from the victim to the effect that “a loan 30 million won to the building.”