A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as a director of C Co., Ltd. carrying on the business of manufacturing and constructing steel frame, was performing a new construction of the “E” building located in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-si from around 2008, and did not receive the cost of construction, and reported the right of retention to the above execution court around December 31, 2010, as the Daejeon District Court Branch SupportF of the Daejeon District Court on July 7, 2010, when the decision to commence an auction was made on July 7, 2010.

In addition, on November 16, 2011, a limited company specializing in the first securitization of L&W (hereinafter “N first securitization”) acquired the ownership of the building by the highest purchaser in the above auction procedure and sold the building to the victim G on June 10, 2013, and on July 30, 2013, the ownership of the building was transferred to the victim.

On the other hand, on March 14, 2012, the first securitization of LWnW filed a lawsuit against C, H, I, and J, the Daejeon District Court 2012, the Daejeon District Court 10075, claiming a lien on the above building.

On June 10, 2013, the Defendant is the victim’s four representatives of the lien holders in the U&S primary securitization office located in the Seomundong-gu Seoul Jung-gu, Jungmun-gu, Seoul.

The Court made a false statement to the effect that, as both the lien holders have agreed, the agreement amount is KRW 1.177 billion, and if 600 million out of the one-lane agreement is paid, the lien holders would receive it at the same time, waive the lien, and terminate the lawsuit currently in progress so that the correspondence can enter into a lease contract immediately after the purchase of the building.

However, even if the defendant received the first agreement from the injured party, he only thought that he would use it for the claim for the construction cost of the Co., Ltd., and would allow I, H and J to waive his right of retention, and there was no intention or ability to resolve the pending case of delivery of the building.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above.