However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is the representative of F Co., Ltd. in E Co., Ltd. located in Doo-si D.

On March 1, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that the victim operating a quantity team called G at the F office of the F office of the F office of the said F company would make a 15th day of each month 15th day of every month, when the victim, who was operating a group of G, from April 1, 2016 to May 31, 2016.

However, in fact, since the second half of 2014, the defendant was accumulated in the enemy construction work, and the defendant received advance payment in advance to prevent the return of the company operating expenses, and was in arrears with the amount of 27 million won, such as the employment insurance premium, which was deducted from the wages of workers, and appropriated it as the company operating expenses, and was economically difficult situation, such as the worker's wages and retirement allowances, which was not timely paid a total of 1.2 billion won, there was no intention or ability to pay the amount of money properly even if he received the work from the injured party.

The Defendant entered into a construction contract with the victim on the same day from April 1, 2016 to the 30th day of the same month, and did not pay the amount equivalent to the same amount of money as the Defendant did not pay the amount of money for construction work equivalent to KRW 85,637,261, even though the Defendant received the payment of money for construction work from G operated by the victim.

[The defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that fraud is not established against the defendant since the defendant is the subject to the payment of the victim's public fraud funds E. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, such as witness H's legal statement, etc., even if the victim entered into a subcontract with the F, which the defendant operated in the direct operation of E, even if the victim formally and formally entered into the subcontract with E, it is deemed that F would receive it from E and deliver it to the victim, and thus, it is not paid at the time due to the economic reasons of F.