A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On May 15, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months of imprisonment with prison labor due to interference with the performance of official duties in the Daegu District Court’s Support, etc., and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on the 23th of the same month.

[Criminal facts]

1. On October 31, 2012, the Defendant interfered with the exercise of his right: (a) purchased Orus car from “D” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) borrowed KRW 7 million from “D”; and (c) paid KRW 291,439 each month for 36 months from the Social Co., Ltd. of the Victim’s Republic of Korea; and (d) around November 2, 201 of the same year, the Defendant set up a mortgage on the claim price of KRW 3.5 million in the name of the victimized Company with respect to the said Orus car.

Nevertheless, the Defendant paid only KRW 1,185,667,00 in installments, and borrowed KRW 6 million from the name-free bond company in front of the franchise company located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Geumcheon-gu around September 2013, and offered and delivered the said franchise vehicle as security, thereby making it considerably difficult to find the location of the said franchise vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed his own property which was the object of the mortgage of the victimized company, thereby hindering the exercise of the rights of the victimized company.

2. The fraud Defendant is under development of a mobile game program with the victims G who were living together in the Defendant’s house located in the F of the Chungcheongbuk-gun on July 5, 2014.

If an investment of KRW 10 million is made, 50% of the profits accrued by developing a game program was made, and the game program is not developed by July 29, 2014, it was false that the principal will be returned if the game program is not developed.

However, in fact, the defendant had no intention or ability to develop a game program and pay 50% of the profits even if he/she received money from the injured party, because he/she had been willing to use the money with debt repayment, living expenses, etc.

On July 10, 2014, the Defendant was the agricultural bank account in the name of H on July 10, 2014.