A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On August 22, 2011, the Defendant stated in the indictment that the Defendant was the victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) and the indictment in Eston hotel in Jongno-gu Seoul Changdong as the representative director of C. However, according to evidence, H is recognized not as a registration director of C, but as a purchaser of real estate jointly with C.

The facts charged in the facts charged against the Defendant, including D, E, F sites and their ground buildings (hereinafter “Defendant’s real estate”) and five other (hereinafter “G, etc.”) (hereinafter “G ownership”), which are owned by the Defendant, are indicated only as “G ownership.” However, according to the records in the certified copy of the register, the facts that the I site and the ground buildings in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government are owned by five other persons, including G, are recognized.

The land and buildings owned by Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City I are sold at KRW 8 billion to the above C, but the down payment of KRW 800 million and the intermediate payment of KRW 300 million are paid on the same day, and the balance of KRW 6.9 billion was entered into a sales contract to be paid until June 14, 2012 (hereinafter “instant contract”). The down payment of KRW 800 million (including KRW 200 million already paid to the Defendant by J, a joint investor before entering into the said sales contract) and the intermediate payment of KRW 1.1 billion was paid.

As above, the Defendant denied the validity of the instant sales contract, in violation of his duty, even though there was a duty to cooperate in the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the said real estate, upon receiving the down payment and the intermediate payment from the purchaser C, and at the same time, violated the said duty. On November 2, 2011, the Defendant: (a) on the real estate owned by the Defendant, K as the obligee, set up a mortgage worth KRW 192 million with K as the maximum debt amount; (b) on November 2, 201, with K as the obligee; (c) on the basis of natural industry and L as the obligee, as the maximum debt amount, KRW 1 billion as the maximum debt amount; and (d) set up a mortgage with M as the obligee, which is the maximum debt