beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, for six months, for six months, and for six months, for six months.
(b).
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A is a public knowledge of the inspection “F” in the city E, and Defendant B is a new map that has a good health after the inspection was conducted in the above inspection, and Defendant C is a husband of the above inspection, who is the husband of the above inspection, and is residing in the above inspection. The victim H was aware of the fact that it was conducted in the process of taking over the factory around 2005, and became a new map that came from the above inspection.
Defendant
A around September 2005, the victim was the victim as above F, and the victim was in the civil procedure, which is the case of N. F. F. It is the case of N.W. The other believers provided the cost of lawsuit and thus he borrowed the cost of lawsuit. He was transferred the total of KRW 17.3 million from November 9, 2006 to December 20, 2007 to the agricultural bank account under the name of the defendant from December 9, 2006.
Since then, the above I was accused of fraud from the FI, and was tried in Busan District Court's Dong Branch branch branch branch branch of the Busan District Court due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud, etc.) (In Busan District Court's Dong Branch of Dong District Court 201Mo27, etc.), and the victim was present in the above criminal trial on May 27, 201, and became aware of the fact that "it is possible to make a provisional attachment on the defendant's property" from the presiding judge at the time of the above trial. On June 8, 2011, the above I requested a provisional attachment on three lots of land, such as J, K, L, etc., and the above loan claim amounting to KRW 1730,000,000,000,000 for the above loan claim, and
(B) On June 17, 2011, Defendant A, as seen above, had been served with a letter of decision of provisional seizure on the real estate owned by the victim and had a risk of being subject to compulsory execution. Defendant B and Defendant C, who was the inspector’s believers, had the burden of bearing a false obligation under the name of Defendant B and Defendant C.