The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, from June 2009 to June 20, 201, performed and performed “C” apartment construction on the south-gun B and 27 parcels of land between the former heading-gun and the former heading-gun, and is the representative director of D, which prevents the Defendant from continuing construction due to the aggravation of management, etc., and E is the representative director of F.

On June 21, 2011, the Defendant drafted and entered into a “contract for the transfer of business rights” with the purport of transferring and taking over total of KRW 4.5 billion, such as the debt amount incurred in relation to the above project, including the site and the building (including the ongoing basic construction work) for the apartment construction project, to E.

On August 16, 2011, the Defendant stated in the bill of indictment for 13,60,000,000 won to the representative L of K gas station, M, 22,00,000,000,000,000 won, including the amount payable for the construction expenses incurred in connection with the apartment construction work, as the victim T, at the office of the first certified judicial scrivener office located in the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (H), Dong-gu Office, Gwangju, to the extent that it does not interfere with the Defendant’s right to defense. However, according to the records, the Defendant’s written indictment is obvious that it is a clerical error of O, and thus,

I would like to prepare a loan certificate and a letter of repayment for KRW 160,000,000, and first, I would like to cancel the establishment of a collateral security or provisional seizure set up on the land of this case.Therefore, I would like to transfer a business license to F Co., Ltd., a corporation of which E is the representative and receive a business license and pay all the amount payable during the loan of PF.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the defendant did not have an intention or ability to pay the account payable for the construction cost, etc. even if the victims cancelled the right to collateral security or provisional seizure because the defendant did not have concluded an agreement with the husband to receive the P and PF loans from the husband of the E and to pay all the accounts payable during that period.

The defendant was released from the right to collateral security and provisional seizure by the victims and failed to pay the amount of KRW 215.6 million in the market price.