Two days of detention before this judgment is sentenced shall be included in the above sentence.

The defendant is a managing director of a limited liability company B, and is a real director of a limited liability company C.

1. On October 14, 2005, the Defendant against the victim D made a false statement to the victim D at the above B office located in Seojin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seojin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on October 14, 2005 that “Korea Company changed KRW 100 million in return for the subcontract for the construction of reinforced concrete among the F New Construction Work contracted to Korea.”

However, the fact was that the construction was already subcontracted to other persons, such as G and H, in relation to the F new construction work in the Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, the said construction was being promoted, and the construction site was provisionally seized, so there was no intention or ability to properly subcontract the reinforced concrete construction work to the victim.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 100 million from the victim’s position.

2. The Defendant committed fraud against the victim I, together with K, which is a managing director of the K-based limited company J, which is the affiliate company of the above B, to avoid the financial shortage by concluding a subcontract agreement with another construction company with respect to the above received construction company B and receiving money in return, and conspired with L, which is the vice president of the above B.

On January 17, 2006, the Defendant and K made a false statement to the victim I on January 17, 2006 at the above B office that “The Defendant and K changed the cost of KRW 20 million in return for giving a subcontract for the installation work among the new construction works of Jung-gu Daejeon, Daejeon Company contracted.”

However, in fact, the Daejeon Jung-gu M&D corporation, which was under the implementation of the above B, failed to enter into this contract with N, the owner of the building, due to the shortage of the construction fund, and it was not possible to start the construction due to the failure to pay taxes under the above B, and the bank loan was impossible. In addition, it already ordered O to subcontract the construction in a lump sum on November 29, 2005 and received KRW 130 million as an advance payment. Therefore, the victim did not have any intent or ability to properly subcontract the construction of the facilities.