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

On May 6, 2012, the Defendant entered into a te-house of the victim E, located in the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government D apartment, with the victim and “The construction cost of KRW 40 million, and the construction period of KRW 2804,00,000,000,000, and the interior design from June 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012.

However, even if the defendant entered into a contract for a construction project with the victim and received money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to do the above construction work.

Ultimately, on May 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as such; and (b) received KRW 4 million in total as contract deposit from the new cooperation account under the name of the Defendant; and (c) received KRW 14 million in advance as of July 11, 2012 from the victim; and (d) received KRW 14 million in advance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Supplementary protocol for police complaints filed against E;

1. A written investigation and response to credit information;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of performance of the obligation to return down payment, intermediate payment, contract for interior works, contract for construction works, and contract for deposit and withdrawal transactions;

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

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant was aware of the circumstances that the interior company operated by the defendant was in the course of tax investigation, and only the failure to perform the interior construction due to the reason that the apartment of this case was completed before the completion of construction is difficult.

2. On May 6, 2012, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, namely, the Defendant entered into a interior contract with the victim on May 6, 2012, with the content that the contract amount is KRW 40 million and the Defendant’s G operated by the contractor, and received the down payment of KRW 4 million from the victim following the following day.