However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

[criminal power] On October 11, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of fraud at the Daejeon District Court, and was sentenced to one year and one year in the Daejeon District Court 2018No2985 appellate court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 18, 2019.

1. On June 8, 2017, the Defendant concluded that, with respect to the C-Maintenance Project, which is in progress, ordered by the K-gu Office of Suwon-do, and ordered by the K-gu Office of Suwon-do, the K-gu Office, and with respect to the C-Maintenance Project, which is in progress by the K-A-B, the K-A-B, the Defendant made a false contact with the victim D who had already been engaged in the construction of food materials construction by the K-A-B, the K-A-B office, and made payment of KRW 10 million

However, even if the defendant received the above money, he was the intention to use it as living expenses, etc., and there was no intention or ability to perform facility construction works.

On the same day, the Defendant was issued KRW 10 million to the account of community credit cooperatives in the name of the Defendant by deceiving the victim as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of D, E, F, and G;

1. Certificates of transfer transactions;

1. Written estimate or a copy of the main text;

1. Standard subcontract agreement for construction works;

1. Before the judgment: The Defendant received the price for the construction of the facilities from the victim for criminal records, investigation reports (the latter concurrent crimes) and attempted to perform the construction of the actual facilities. At the time of Cambodia, the Defendant issued a written estimate prior to Cambodia, but did not take any clear decision as to the implementation of the project based on a written estimate to the effect that the cost of estimate would be high. However, even though the Defendant attempted to perform the construction of the facilities and to return to Cambodia without any clear decision as to the implementation of the project based on a written estimate to the effect that the cost of estimate would be high, the Defendant attempted to carry out the construction of the actual facilities. However, even though the flood mold construction, which is in question, was the scale of the actual facilities, and the Defendant attempted to carry out the construction of the actual facilities, the Defendant attempted to put the order into a written estimate prior to Cambodia, but the victim was the victim.