A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2 million.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Defendants are those engaged in construction business.

1. On February 24, 2017, Defendant A entered into a contract with the victim D, the representative director of C Co., Ltd. for the construction of a detached housing complex (tor and ancillary civil engineering) with the Shinsi-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si, and, during the above construction, Defendant B subcontracted Defendant B to Defendant B for the removal of earth and sand in the amount equivalent to KRW 115,59,00 in March, KRW 246,713,50 in April, and KRW 361,295,00 in total, KRW 361,295,00 in total. However, the Defendants were unable to receive the construction payment from the victim, based on the data on which the construction amount was unfased, Defendant B received the construction payment directly from the company operated by the contractor pursuant to the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act.

2. On May 13, 2017, Defendant A committed a crime of attempted fraud transmitted the following: (a) the joint statement of construction cost of KRW 157,319,80 for March 15, 201; (b) the joint statement of construction cost of KRW 361,60,800 for April 3; and (c) the joint statement of construction cost of KRW 518,920,60 for April 5, 200; and (b) Defendant B, on May 20, 2017, filed a direct claim for construction cost on the basis of the irregular construction cost prepared on the basis of the data transmitted by Defendant A with the victim in the C site office located in the wife population E; (c) the victim failed to pay the construction cost knowing that the construction cost was unfured and did not result in attempted attempts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statements made by witnesses D and F in the second trial records;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Payment notes, tax invoices, recording notes, transportation contracts (as of March 21, 2017), false statement of transaction (excluding the pen section), exump shipping days, recommendations for reconciliation, decisions on recommendation for settlement, normal transaction specifications, and documents sent by A to B, the Defendants and their defense counsel did not have the intent to defraud the Defendants, and there is no property damage to the victims.