A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On October 1, 2012, the Defendant released the said provisional seizure on the instant building in the name of the victim under the victim’s name of 500,000,000 won in the amount claimed on October 11, 2012, on the following grounds: “The Defendant released the provisional seizure on the instant building under the victim’s name: (a) the victim, who is the person holding the provisional seizure right on the south-gu Seoul Southern-gu Seoul Southern-gu Da apartment 105, 601 (hereinafter “instant building”); and (b) the victim, who was the person holding the provisional seizure right on the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”).

However, due to disputes over the existence of obligation with the victim, the defendant did not cancel the above provisional seizure and did not change the principal loan bank, but was planned to establish a collateral mortgage on the building in the name of another person, and there was no intention or ability for the victim to create a collateral mortgage on the building or to repay the debt.

Accordingly, by deceiving the victim and releasing provisional seizure, the Defendant stated that he acquired financial benefits equivalent to the security value of the building of this case “50 million won, which is the claim amount of provisional seizure”.

acquisition of property benefits.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (the second trial date);

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A certificate of all matters in the register - Application of building statutes;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act in the suspended sentence is that the defendant unfairly released the provisional seizure of the victim's name, which had been the object of dispute over several years by deceiving the victim, and even until now, it has not reached an agreement with the victim. However, the defendant's mistake is divided and reflected.