Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

A victim B is the owner of the “C” (hereinafter “the instant play equipment”) of the play equipment, and the Defendant is the installer and repairer of the play equipment.

The Defendant, from May 21, 2012, to May 21, 2012, operated by E (G in the case of women in South and North Korea)

6. By up to 17.17., it stated that E was not dead before two years or around 2016 due to the fact that E was not paid wages due to the repair, installation, and inspection of the play equipment of this case, even though there were wages received from E.

Around June 2014, this Court filed a civil suit against the victim, etc. with this Court Decision 2012Kadan56064, and around June 2014, E filed a civil suit with the defendant to pay KRW 7,650,000 to the defendant (this Court Decision 2012Kadan56064, hereinafter "the judgment of this case"). The judgment of this case knew that the play equipment of this case was the victim's ownership, and that the play equipment of this case was not the victim's ownership, but the E knew that it was not the victim's ownership. On December 2015, E filed an application for the auction of corporeal movables related to the play equipment of this case with the debtor (the Daejeon District Court official branch H; hereinafter "the auction procedure of this case"). In the absence of E, E submitted the judgment of this case as the executive title, and by inducing the court to be a participant, i.e., the defendant's land, and J.

On March 3, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the court, acquired the instant play equipment from the court at a successful bid of KRW 9.6 million.

The facts charged partially revised to the extent that it does not interfere with the defendant's defense right.

Meanwhile, in the facts charged, the market price of the play machine of this case is 18 million won or more, which is based on a receipt that the victim paid 18 million won as the purchase price of the play machine of this case around July 2005. However, in the auction procedure of this case, the appraised value of the play machine of this case is only 12 million won.

b)a summary of the evidence;