When the Defendant had business difficulties due to business depressions, debt accumulation, etc. while operating the interior company in Kimhae-si B with the trade name of “C”, the Defendant had the victims make a false statement as if he had paid the price to the victims, and had the victims do the interior work, and had the victims avoid contact or locked with the victims, thereby having the victims acquire pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount in a way of not paying the price.

1. The Defendant committed the crime against the victim D was at the above “C office” office around December 2013, when the Defendant could not release the main household due to the cumulative payment for Han branch as to Han branch, and the victim D, a business entity of Han branch, who is the business entity of Han branch, could not deliver the outstanding payment for the outstanding payment. The Defendant would promptly receive the payment for the construction work if the Defendant would have received the material from the business entity of Han branch in lieu of the unpaid payment.

“.......”

However, the defendant did not have an intention or ability to pay the amount that the injured party has repaid on behalf of the injured party, even if the injured party would have paid on behalf of the defendant the unpaid amount of the above sample and received the material.

Nevertheless, on December 31, 2013, the Defendant made the victim make a false statement, and around December 31, 2013, the Defendant made the victim pay 5,096,000 won to the Defendant for the payment of the unpaid price for Han Han-chul. On July 31, 2014, the Defendant made the victim pay 2,353,078 won on behalf of the Defendant, and obtained the pecuniary benefits equivalent to the above amount by means of not paying 8,502,260 won to the victim.

2. On July 2014, the Defendant of the crime against the victim E would pay the price immediately after the completion of the said work, where the victim E would have been performing a work to replace the glass of the apartment site, at the place described in paragraph (1) around July 2014.

The term "" refers to the following.

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the cost of the work even if the work is done in favor of the victim.

Nevertheless, the defendant's above-mentioned statements are false.