Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

A debtor who is obliged to submit a property list under the order to specify the property shall not submit a false property list.

On June 22, 2018, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath on the date of the above court's property specification case No. 2018Kao-531, which took place in the court of Daejeon Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon District Court No. 334, the Daejeon District Court, and then submitted to the above court the list of properties on which the claim for KRW 700,000,000 against the B facilities development project cooperative was filed, notwithstanding the fact that there was a claim against the B facilities district development project cooperative.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Court of Daejeon High Court Decision 2010Na7544

1. On June 22, 2018, the Defendant’s defense counsel in the 2018Kao-Ma531 Property Inspection Protocol was unaware of the existence of monetary claims, such as those stated in the facts charged at the time of submission of the property list, and there was no false submission of the property list by omitting the amount “six kinds of property” in the case of an application for the property list. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined, the Defendant omitted the report of the claim claim amounting to KRW 700 million against the B facilities District Development Project Association, notwithstanding the fact that the claim amounting to KRW 700 million was claimed, in view of the fact that the Defendant intentionally submitted the property list without the above claim amount to the court.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 68 (9) of the Civil Execution Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for sentencing order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act denies a criminal act, and the fact that the defendant did not violate a mistake is considered under unfavorable circumstances, and the fact that there was no past record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine is considered under favorable circumstances. However, the fact that the defendant has been punished four times by a fine for senior citizens, and