When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Even upon receiving a request from the victim B for the interior work, the Defendant was planning to accept the construction cost and repay most debts incurred in the course of another construction work. The Defendant did not receive any revenue from another place within the agreed period for completing the construction work with the victim and did not have any surplus funds. As such, if using the construction cost received from the victim, there was no intent or ability to complete the construction within the agreed period.

Nevertheless, at around 18:45 on October 9, 2016, the Defendant concluded that “D” in the “D” restaurant located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Victim Operation was false to mean that “the Defendant will complete the interior works within one week when concluding a construction contract and paying the construction cost.”

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received three million won from the victim to the account (Korean bank, account number E) of the Defendant on the same day from the victim, and received nine million won from the same account around 16:33 of the same month, and acquired 12 million won in total on two occasions in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Letters of deposit details, interior designs, and execution contracts;

1. Application of the statute to print text messages;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347 of the same Act concerning the crime, the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;