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

On August 30, 2013, the Defendant borrowed money to the Defendant as personnel expenses because the Defendant did not pay the construction cost due to the failure of the prime contractor in payment of the construction cost in the housing construction site located in Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do around August 30, 2013.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, at the time, the Defendant, other than the foregoing Housing Corporation, was a plan to use it first for the repayment of obligations related to other construction works, even if he/she received the payment for the labor cost related to the progress of the construction works at the same time when he/she concurrently proceeds from the construction of the eudio Construction Corporation and the eudio Construction Corporation and the eudio Construction Corporation located in Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, and at the same time.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, had the victim pay 17 million won to the non-persons in the same day as personnel expenses, thereby acquiring property profits equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Entry, a gold trading statement, and a certificate of cash custody;

1. In fact, it is true that the Defendant had the victim pay KRW 17 million to his father for investigation report (documents submitted by the suspect) and construction work standard contract, but the Defendant was scheduled to receive the construction cost in relation to the instant construction work and other construction work, and thus, the Defendant was willing to have the victim receive the construction cost at the time, and thus, the Defendant is denied the crime of

In addition to the instant construction, it is recognized that the Defendant had been running the studio construction work and the instant construction work in the disposal population. However, in the case of E construction, the Defendant agreed to receive the construction cost after completion, even though the date of completion was already completed at the time of the instant loan, and thus, it was difficult to know at any time to receive the said payment, and there was a debt related to the said construction.