A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four 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 July 6, 2011, the Defendant: (a) borrowed money of KRW 30 million from the name of the money borrowed from the victim D, who operates a branch of a mar-dong, Yongsan-gu; (b) around September 9, 201, the Defendant made a provisional attachment registration of KRW 30,000,000,000,000 for the borrowed money, owned by the Defendant on September 9, 201, to secure this.

The Defendant additionally borrowed 47 million won from November 201 to May 2012 under the same name as the victim.

Around August 2012, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s office located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stated that “The Defendant would, by cancelling provisional attachment of the amount of KRW 30 million as of September 9, 201, sell and sell the land on the face of the State, and pay all of KRW 7,00,000,000 which is the full amount of the borrowed money as the purchase price.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim even if the victim had cancelled the provisional seizure established on each of the above lands.

Nevertheless, on August 10, 2012, the Defendant had the victim cancel the registration of provisional seizure established on each of the above lands on August 10, 2012, thereby acquiring the pecuniary benefits equivalent to 30 million won of the claim for provisional seizure.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Each police statement made to I;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion on a written oath, a monetary loan certificate, a copy of the passbook transaction, and a copy of the copy of the register

1. The defendant asserts that the provisional seizure in this case did not have been rescinded to repay the borrowed money on the face of the owner, and that "the provisional seizure was cancelled to prevent the entry of the auction," and that the victim's personal-friendly relationship and business partner should prevent the defendant from being put up by auction.

2. Therefore, judgment.