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.

In June 2015, the Defendant was overwork in the name of “C” operated by the Defendant in Busan, Daegu, Busan, the Defendant would pay the expenses additionally paid to the Corporation upon completion of the construction, despite the absence of the intent or ability to pay the construction cost due to a large amount of debt, even if the Defendant was subject to the Indian construction from the victim D. However, the Defendant would have paid the victim KRW 10 million prior to the completion of the construction.

“Along on July 2015, the victim acquired a property interest equivalent to the amount of 15,500,000 won in a way that does not pay the construction cost, even if he/she had completed the interior construction work at the same time as the above-mentioned department around July 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on construction specifications and transaction specifications;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (the following favorable circumstances):

1. Although the liability for the crime is not exceptionally applied because the amount equivalent to the construction cost of the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is obtained by deceit and the damage is not recovered, there is no other criminal punishment except for the criminal punishment of a fine due to drinking driving in 2005, and the punishment is determined as ordered by comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.