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

around October 2014, the Defendant: “Around 2017 Man-Ma2648, the Defendant was awarded a contract to the victim in the D office of the victim C’s operation in the Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; “B, as the director of the limited liability company E, was awarded a contract from F to the victim for the pelfa in the second construction of the Gyeonggi-gu GG building. In addition, if the Plaintiff borrowed the pelfa team necessary for the pelfag construction, he would be paid with the pelfags in advance, and later, he would be able to receive a direct payment of the labor cost from F with the amount calculated by adding 10% of the labor cost paid by the party.”

However, there was no thought that the defendant would properly give back the labor cost that the defendant received from the victim, and there was no intention or ability to cause the victim to pay the victim more than 10% of the fee from F.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 572,00 as labor cost from the victim on December 3, 2014, who was paid KRW 572,00 from the victim, and acquired it by deception, etc., from January 26, 2015, received KRW 93,093,00 as labor cost through payment from that time to January 26, 2015.

On July 2017, the Defendant stated to the effect that “A” is false to the effect that the victim I operating a human resources supplier company at the H apartment site at Asan-si, Asan-si, and that “A” would provide the victim with human resources from the month after the month of the construction in the Dispute Settlement Council,” and that “A” would provide the victim with personnel expenses at the H apartment site at the H apartment construction site at the Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Asan-si and the construction site at the Pyeongtaek-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and that “A will provide the victim with human resources expenses.”

However, in fact, the defendant was not the director of the KCAJ, and the debtor was not in arrears with the loan company, and even if he was supplied with human resources from the victim, he would pay the labor cost normally.