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

On April 22, 2011, the Defendant, at the D office operated by the Defendant in the third floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Building, displayed the specifications of the H Corporation located in the Gangwon-do Incheon-gun G G, and received a contract for H Civil Works (hereinafter “the instant civil Works”) from the victim E and F.

Within one week, it made a false statement that "130 million won is changed at the expense of the introduction of construction works to enable the transportation of earth and sand within a construction site."

However, the Defendant did not have been awarded a contract for the instant civil works by the Company, and the instant civil works were carried out by the J Company on November 201, 2010 by entering into a contract with the I Company. As such, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to subcontract the said victims with earth and sand transport work related to the civil works.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received from the victims each remittance of KRW 80 million on April 22, 2011, and KRW 50 million on May 11, 201, from the victims to the Korean bank account (number L) with the Defendant’s wife K.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement of M in the third public trial protocol, the witness E, F, and the ten-time public trial protocol;

1. Entry of part of the witnessN in the fifth public trial records;

1. To make each statement to the accused in the police interrogation protocol (including the cross-examination of the accused) and each part of the protocol of the examination of the suspect to the prosecution;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor with respect toO and M;

1. Details of entry and withdrawal transactions in the F name of passbook, details of passbook transactions in the name of the suspect's wife K, judgment of the District Court 2013 High Court 2013 High Court 2013 High Court 2756 and application of statutes on standard subcontracting contracts for construction works;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendant alleged that he had the authority to conclude a subcontract regarding the civil engineering works of this case.