A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 15, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year of imprisonment with prison labor at the Jeonju District Court for fraud, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 18, 2014.

The Defendant is the actual owner of an aggregate building in Kujin-gu, Jeonjin-gu, Seoul, and E is the father of F with the provisional registration authority F, which was established on December 14, 2012 for the 6th floor of the above aggregate building as of December 14, 2012. At the time, G, the husband of the Defendant, had a claim of KRW 40,00,000, which was the cause of the above provisional registration, against G, the husband of the Defendant.

The Defendant, a husband, issued a one copy of the number of units of non-performing debt settlement to the victim H, and decided to conclude a criminal agreement with the victim by transferring ownership of the 6th class 601 of the above aggregate building and transferring the ownership of the 6th class 601 to the victim.

In the process, there was a fact that the Defendant had the victim prepare a letter of payment that “h will pay KRW 80,000,000 to F in receiving a provisional registration right from F, the person with the provisional registration under the above 601.”

Around September 2013, the victim filed a complaint against the Defendant and E’s ancillary F, etc. with the charge of forging private documents, uttering of falsified documents, etc. under the foregoing Article, and regarding the foregoing case, E was subject to witness investigation at the prosecutor’s office of the former Jeju District Prosecutors’ Office 313 on April 18, 2014, where E was located in Seojin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

In order to verify whether “80,000,000 won claim” appearing in the investigation process, the investigator asked E whether or not there exists a claim or obligation with the G, A, and H. In fact, E had a claim of KRW 40,000 against G, and despite having received reimbursement of KRW 25,00,000 among May 7, 2013, as requested in advance from the Defendant, the investigator was paid KRW 105,00,000 to G, and received KRW 25,00,000 from May 7, 2013.

The claim of KRW 80,000,000 as of May 7, 2013 remains, in consideration of the transfer of provisional registration.