A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than four years and six months.

54,405,726 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

As above, the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

On September 22, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Labor Standards Act in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch on September 22, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 20, 2017.

" 2017 Gohap 2"

1. From October 1, 2003 to May 12, 201, the Defendant served as the representative director of the gold-type manufacturing company (main owner) D in the Gu and from May 13, 201 to July 22, 2016, the Defendant served as the manager of the company’s rehabilitation procedure.

A. A. Around April 2016, the Defendant against the victim E was supplied with gold-type raw materials from the FF operated by the victim E, but the payment was not made, and the victim was obligated to pay 334,679,810 won to the victim. Based on this, on May 23, 2016, the Defendant received a decision of provisional attachment as to the claim for the payment of goods against the said (State) D in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon support.

Accordingly, on June 2016, the Defendant would immediately pay KRW 30 million in total to G, who is an employee of the F, of the said F, for the following reasons: “The Defendant collected KRW 110 million from ELD flas upon the cancellation of provisional attachment, and repaid the said debt, and transferred the claim of KRW 100 million to F, and received KRW 120 million in the price of the machinery by selling factory machinery, etc., and receive KRW 120 million in the price of the machinery.

“A false statement” was made.

However, the above (State) D was unable to pay monthly wages to employees from May 2016 due to the financial shortage, and the creditors' demands were also faced with the crisis of bankruptcy due to the creditor's demand, and the defendant tried to recover the outstanding amount and to use the proceeds sold from the factory machinery for personal purposes. Therefore, the victim did not have the intent or ability to pay the above money promised to the victim even if the provisional seizure was cancelled.

As a result, the defendant deceivings the above G which was delegated with the authority of the victim to cancel provisional seizure against claims, etc., and caused G to cancel provisional seizure against the above claim on June 21, 2016, and caused D to be equivalent to the above claim amount of provisional seizure.