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

The defendant is a representative director who operates B and C corporation established for the purpose of indoor design and consulting, etc., and B corporation contracted F'F's construction work with D, Songpa-gu Seoul E company, "F's construction work, and carried out the construction work."

On May 7, 2014, the Defendant, through G, the Defendant at the site director at the construction site of the above model house, concluded that “I would receive the construction completion money from the ordering office and pay the said construction cost,” and that it would have the victim perform the construction work of households worth KRW 39.6 million in total by June 7, 2014, and did not pay the price.

However, in fact, since from February 2014, the Defendant had not been able to pay the wages to the employees of the Defendant Company B in excess of the obligation without any particular property, even if the Defendant received the construction cost, the Defendant did not have the intent to pay the construction cost to the victim.

Ultimately, the Defendant, including by deceiving the victim as above and acquiring the pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 39.6 million from the victim, obtained a total of KRW 42.79 million from around that time to Haman on June 2014 by the same method as indicated in the separate crime list.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The prosecutor's interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to I, G, J and K

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. However, the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below) is not many proprietary benefits acquired by the defendant.