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

To the extent that the defendant's right of defense is not disadvantaged, part of the facts charged was revised.

On July 31, 2018, the victim B applied for a payment order against the defendant for the return of lease deposit. On July 31, 2018, the Changwon District Court ordered the defendant to pay 80,200,000 won to the creditor and the defendant as the debtor and the delayed damages. The above payment order became final and conclusive on September 14, 2018.

In order to prevent the Defendant from enforcing compulsory execution, such as seizure, against the Defendant upon the above payment order finalized by the injured party, the Defendant met the victim at the mutual infinite coffee shop located in Gyeongnam-gu around March 2019, and the Defendant changed the period until that time to pay the victim the amount of KRW 85 million and its interest, etc. up to November 30, 2019. If the Defendant fails to perform this, it would transfer the lease deposit of the D cafeteria operated by Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gu, Busan, to the Defendant instead of the right to operate the said cafeteria.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, the amount of the deposit remaining on the wind, which is deducted from the deposit, due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the monthly rent of the above D cafeteria building, was less than the above KRW 50 million, and the cafeteria facility was owned by the owner of the above cafeteria building, not by the Defendant.

In addition, the Defendant, at the time, has borne bank loans and personal debts in excess of KRW 1 billion, and there was no financial situation. At that time, the financial situation has continuously deteriorated even though the Defendant had been making profits while operating the above D restaurant, the above D restaurant, the lusent restaurant, the above lusent restaurant, and the lusium in order to perform the repair work of another lusent restaurant operated by the Defendant.

Defendant 1 did not have the intent or ability to repay the obligation to the victim even if the repayment period has been postponed by the injured party for the foregoing reasons, and would transfer the obligation to the victim instead of the victim.

I Do cafeteria.