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

The defendant is the actual operator of the (State) E, the representative director.

On June 21, 2013, the Defendant entered into a subcontract for construction works with the victim at the victim G (Nam, 47 years of age)'s office located in the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City F, Seoyang-si, and 12 households of multi-household housing in Goyang-si, Goyang-si, and 1.8 billion won of total construction cost.

However, the above (State) E is an enterprise that has not registered the construction business, and it does not have the ability to obtain the contract performance guarantee certificate from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance, and even if it receives advance payment from the victim, there was no intention or ability to perform the above construction work.

Nevertheless, the defendant is against the victim for the same reason.

6. 27. Receipt of remittance of KRW 40 million to the account of a national bank bank in the name of the above E under the pretext of advance payment for construction works, and the same year;

7.9. The 2.9. The 2.9 million won was remitted to the same passbook as the construction cost to be removed at the above construction site.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. G statement among the interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor

1. A petition for G production (including attached documents);

1. Application of standard contracts for private construction works, specifications of transactions-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Sentencing Criteria for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act: Fraudulent crimes, general fraud, type 1 (less than 100 million won), basic area, imprisonment with labor for six months to one year and six months, the Defendant issued a construction business registration certificate prepared at will by entering into a construction contract with the victim, and the Defendant did not confirm whether it is possible to issue a contract performance guarantee certificate, which is a contract performance condition. The Defendant deposited 34.2 million won for the victim’s recovery of damage, and other conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, criminal records, the circumstances of this case, and the progress thereafter.