A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Criminal facts

Around March 3, 2005, the Defendant: (a) at the notary public-law office, law firm Korea, law firm, which is located in Bupyeong-gu, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, 373-26, the Defendant: (b) demanded the victim D to collect KRW 134,124,982 of the loans owed by the victim D; and (c) drafted a contract of transfer and takeover of the above bonds to facilitate the collection thereof; (d) the Defendant had the duty to collect claims from E and pay them to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the above duties, and around December 31, 2007, at the vicinity of the E’s residence located in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, the Defendant exempted the Defendant from the obligation to KRW 128,924,982, the remainder of the amount calculated by deducting KRW 5.2 million already paid out of KRW 134,124,982 from E, thereby having E obtain property benefits equivalent to the same amount, and the Defendant suffered property damage equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including DNA statements);

1. Application of notarial deed (Written Confirmation of December 31, 2007) and statutes on written judgment;

1. Relevant Article 355 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 355 (2) of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. According to the evidence of conviction and sentencing grounds of Article 32(1)3 and Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Litigation, etc. of Application for Compensation, the facts charged are fully found guilty. On May 17, 2007, the defendant received KRW 5 million from the witness E even according to the defendant’s statement, and the defendant changed to a certain extent.

The defendant declared his/her intention to exempt the remainder of his/her obligation because he/she was dead.

agreement for debt settlement may not be deemed to have been made.

(B) The witness E’s partial statement to the effect that there was an oral agreement for debt settlement is not reliable. On a different premise, the defense counsel’s claim for the completion of the statute of limitations, and the assertion against the principle of res judicata are all asserted.