On January 12, 2015, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the removal of the AU in the Si of Seopopo City AR in the Si of Seopopo City and the AU in the Si of Seopo City.

The payment made a false statement that "to receive the order from the person who ordered the removal work immediately after the completion of the removal work."

However, in fact, even if the owner of the order for the removal work receives the construction cost from AV, the Defendant planned to use part of the amount for his own separate construction work, and the Defendant had already been obligated to pay wages to workers in relation to other construction work. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the service cost to the victim with the payment received from AV immediately after the completion

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) had the victim dispose of waste; and (c) did not pay 21,063,000 won of the disposal cost; and (d) took property benefits.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against AR;

1. Complaints, technical service standard contracts, reports on a construction waste treatment plan, and notification;

1. In an investigation report (AV telephone statement), investigation report (AV additional statement) [Defendant and defense counsel asserted at the time that they had the intent and ability to pay the service cost stated in the facts constituting a crime to the Defendant, and denies the intent of the crime of defraudation. However, this court may comprehensively consider the evidence duly admitted and investigated as follows. However, although the Defendant paid the service cost to the victim with the construction cost paid by the person ordering the removal of AU Innb, he did not pay the service cost to the victim at all other construction sites (AW construction site), the Defendant paid part of the construction cost paid by the person ordering the work (AW construction site), and the Defendant did not pay the service cost to the victim at all.