However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On July 2, 2015, at the E office of the Defendant’s operation (State) located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the Defendant: (a) made a complaint to the effect that “Around August 2, 2009, the Gyeonggi-do F Civil Works Corporation (hereinafter “Seoul-si”); (b) upon completion of D, the Defendant paid KRW 20 million to the end of G to receive construction payment in lump sum from the executor; and (c) yet, the Defendant still did not receive the remainder of construction payment to the extent that G would be punished for fraud; and (d) made a statement to the effect that “A would be punished for fraud” in the process of supplementary investigation by the Namyang-si Police Station around the 10th of the same month.

However, in fact, the Defendant delivered KRW 20 million to G in return for the introduction of the above construction work, and there was no agreement for lump-sum payment of the construction work price. On June 21, 2010, there had already been no balance of the construction work price paid after receiving the payment of KRW 240 million from the executor around June 21, 2010.

As a result, the defendant committed a criminal punishment against G for the purpose of having G receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness G’s legal statement (not only does the fact that the contract price is paid in a lump sum on the contract made between E operated by the defendant and the contractor (State) but also the above (State) representative director I stated that he does not pay the contract price in a lump sum, and that he does not pay the contract price in a lump sum, the agreement to pay the contract price in advance in a lump sum can be seen as an exceptional case in light of the transactional practice, in light of the fact that the contract price is to be paid in advance by the prosecutor, and that the contract price is not paid in a lump sum on the part of the defendant and the contractor, and that it is a position to guarantee that the above I would pay the contract price in

It is difficult to see that the Defendant did not receive the payment of the construction cost in full.

However, according to the claim, the full-time receipt for the construction cost (63 pages of the evidence record), the tax invoice (62 pages of the evidence record), etc., the defendant's delivery payment was received in full.