Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On April 10, 2009, the Defendant: (a) prepared a false lease agreement in the name of friendly E in the name of friendly E while substantially operating and managing the DNA, which is located in the Nam-si, Nam-si; and (b) continued to occupy the said DNA after completing the registration under the name of E.

On July 6, 2009, the Defendant was brought a lawsuit seeking the transfer of a building, etc. to the above DNA, etc. from F on February 10, 201. On February 10, 201, the Defendant lost the first instance court against the DNA, and on December 22, 2011, expected the delivery execution of real estate to the above DNA.

Meanwhile, from July 201 to August 2010, the Defendant employed G as a manager, and ordered G to present the business registration certificate under the name of E on the premise that E is an actual operator if the F or the court found the said Del.

On December 23, 2011, the Defendant: (a) around 14:05, at the foregoing Del, obtained the enforcement title of the Gwangju High Court Decision 201Na 1698; and (b) obtained the consent of the enforcement officer of the Gwangju District Court Decision 201Na 1698, G having knowledge of the fact to H is “Durine E is a place of business; (c) the Defendant does not possess the place of execution; and (d) he does not lawfully register the Dur.

“Absently raises an objection to enforcement,” and suggested the E-name’s business registration certificate.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the execution of official duties concerning the delivery of real estate by fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness G;

1. A written judgment on the surrender of a building 7399, 201Na 1698, 201Na 1698, a written judgment on the surrender of a real estate, a protocol of non-delivery of real estate, and a judgment on the embezzlement (A) (A) of the court below which ordered G to provide the execution officer with a business registration certificate under the name of E when it is deemed that the actual operator of the DNA is E, and the execution officer’s formal review right has been invalidated due to G’s act.

As such, public service is performed through a deceptive scheme.