A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant: (a) had the right to sell apartment units at the time of borrowing KRW 30,000 from the injured party for the construction of the instant construction of the instant construction of the instant construction site Dtel (hereinafter “the instant construction”); and (b) the Defendant and the aggrieved party had sufficient financial capability to pay the instant construction cost; (c) the Defendant and the aggrieved party invested in the fact that they were in a partnership business relationship for the instant construction; and (d) made it possible for the instant construction to do so by repaying the obligations at the instant construction site by investing bills, etc., it may be recognized that the Defendant did not have any criminal intent by deception.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, observation of protection, 160 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. On September 2014, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case stated that the Defendant would make a subcontract for the construction of the instant officetel (around September 1, 2014, the Defendant would make a false statement on the following: “The content of the agreement that the construction works will divide into 5:5,000,000,000 won or more) at the scene of the construction of the officetel located in Jeju-si and the victim E would be able to adjust the existing smuggling wage and material cost and resume the construction (along with the loan of KRW 30 million,00,000,000).

However, in fact, the Defendant was due to bad credit standing and was liable for 1.3 billion won without any specific property. The Defendant did not have the intent or ability to resolve F’s nearest right (the secured debt of KRW 125 million) established on the construction site of the above Dtel, and approximately KRW 96 million of the existing overdue wages. Even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the injured party, he did not have the intent or ability to resume the construction, to subcontract the structural construction, or to secure profits by carrying out joint projects.

Nevertheless, the defendant is the victim.