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

On January 31, 2015, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant would complete the victim’s new coloning construction work by paying KRW 22 million to the victim B at the French coffee shop located in Yong-dong, Nam-gu, Busan, and by February 28, 2015.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any particular property at the time, while carrying out apartment remodeling construction, and the debt was accumulated while carrying out several projects, and there was no intention or ability to complete the construction work normally even if he received the construction price from the injured party, as the case is being prevented from returning the construction price.

Ultimately, the Defendant, as such, deceiving the victim, and deceiving the victim, was 20,000 won on February 1, 2015, and the same month from the victim.

7. The 6.6 million won, the 8.8 million won on 13.1 of the same month, the 3.0 million won on 26.2 of the same month, and the 22.6 million won on 5.2 million won on 2015, were received and acquired through payment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Details of contract, text transmission and reception, mail details, application of Acts and subordinate statutes on construction site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment (in comprehensive, the choice of imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following sentencing shall be taken into consideration in favor of the people in mind):

1. The crime of this case with the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is an unfavorable condition, such as the following: (a) the crime of this case was committed by deceiving the construction cost without performing the contract even though it was ordered to perform the construction work, and the construction cost was received; (b) the nature of the crime is not good; (c) the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim; (d) the damage is deemed not to have been recovered; (e) the defendant had a majority of criminal records of the same kind; (e)

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the facts charged during the investigation process is seriously contradictory to the defendant, and the defendant is part of the interior works.