If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On November 20, 2013, the Defendant entered into a construction contract for the new construction of G factories in land located in Kimhae-si in KRW 357.5 million for E and construction cost while operating “D” for construction work, etc. on or around November 20, 2013.

Accordingly, the Defendant called the victim H to the new site of G factory after completing the basic construction work on December 2, 2013, and called the victim H to the end of the construction work. The Defendant would pay the construction cost immediately after the completion of the construction work and, if the construction cost is not paid, transfer the construction cost claim to G.

“ .......”

However, in fact, the defendant had already been liable to pay the construction price to the victim because he had already been liable for the debt equivalent to KRW 200 million, and even if he was paid the construction price from the above E, he did not have the ability to pay the construction price to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) informed the victim of such deception; (b) had the victim implement the said panel construction from December 23, 2013 to April 3, 2014; and (c) did not pay KRW 94,000,000 to the victim; and (d) obtained the same pecuniary benefits.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Entry of each part of the protocol concerning the police and the examination of suspects of the accused in the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police for H, I, J, and E;

1. Investigation report (the result of execution of a warrant of seizure);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the payment of construction price, such as a standard contract or payment order copy;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which is the sole agreement with the victim for the reason of sentencing, and the damage was recovered, the fact that there is no record of the same crime, and that it does not seem that the construction cost has not been paid in bad faith. In addition, all the circumstances of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s environment, etc.