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

[Criminal Power] On September 18, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor of four years and six months in Seoul High Court for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 28, 2016.

【Criminal Facts】

Based on the facts revealed in the records and arguments of this case, some criminal facts were revised to the extent that the defendant's right of defense is not infringed.

The defendant, as the representative director of the corporation B and C, has patent rights related to the method of installing underground tunnel structures, such as D public law, E public law, F public law, G public law, etc.

The fact that Defendant or C had patent construction methods, such as D construction methods, in relation to non-contain construction works, was determined to be designed by the above construction methods, or even if the above construction methods were reflected in the design, the Defendant had no intent or ability to guarantee the order of construction works within a short period, and had the above construction methods fulfilled, and had the intention to receive design fees under the pretext that the above patent construction methods would allow construction works as reflected in a specific construction work.

On March 7, 2013, the Defendant stated that “The Victim K, the representative director of J, Co., Ltd., Ltd., has been designed by D Public Law, and the design cost would be received from the owner of the above construction,” through I at the office of the C Office located in the eightth floor of H building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul.”

However, in fact, the above Lway Corporation was carrying out basic design and working design services from March 201 to February 2013, and it was not finally confirmed by applying D public law, etc., and even if the Defendant received design expenses from the victim, it did not have the intent or ability to receive the above construction works for a short period.

As above, the Defendant deceivings the victim, and up to March 7, 2013, around 115,50,000 won as the down payment pursuant to the technical support design agreement, and around May 9, 2013.