A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Punishment of the crime

On November 23, 2007, the Defendant established a right to collateral security on the instant real estate by setting up a maximum claim amount of KRW 7.8 million and a neighboring G church on February 25, 2008 under the circumstances where: (a) the victim E sells to the victim E the land of KRW 300,000 out of the F at regular Eup (hereinafter “instant real estate”); (b) KRW 50,000,000 as the down payment on the same day; and (c) the Defendant received KRW 40,000 as the part payment on the same day; and (b) around January 15, 2008, the Defendant received KRW 40,000 as the part payment on the part of the part payment.

On February 28, 2008, the Defendant: “The actual amount of the debt of the right to collateral security against G church established on February 25, 2008 is KRW 35 million; and he was aware that he had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had

For the remaining reasons, if a person with the first priority in the real estate of this case pays a debt of KRW 120 million to the mutual savings bank and interest of KRW 9260,00 to the person with the first priority in the real estate of this case, he would immediately transfer the registration of the real estate of this case to another person.

1. As seen, the Plaintiff made a false statement to the effect that the Plaintiff was “.”

However, the indictment contains the following additional statement: “The actual amount of debt of the right to collateral security against the above church was KRW 200 million,” but according to the protocol of examination of the O, the actual amount of debt of the right to collateral security against the above church can be acknowledged as “35 million won.”

On the other hand, even if these facts are deleted differently from the facts charged without the amendment procedure of indictment, there is disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of defense

As such, this part of the facts charged is corrected ex officio as above.

Although the Defendant tried to develop and sell approximately 2,200 units of real estate in the vicinity of the instant real estate, the Defendant did not have any particular income since it did not sell it until November 2007, and was issued under the name of the purchase price, etc. of the instant real estate as of March 11, 2008.