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

On June 11, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor and four years of suspended execution due to forced indecent acts, etc. by the Incheon District Court, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 19, 2015.

On April 2015, the Defendant stated that “In the office of the Defendant located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C Building 302, the Defendant carried out additional construction with the money if the Defendant borrowed the money to the victim as it is necessary to pay the money for additional construction, such as stairs, electrical construction, etc., when the completion of the construction of the loan was completed, the Defendant borrowed the money to the victim D, and the interest on the loan shall be responsible for the interest, repaid, and the principal shall be repaid by selling the loan in lots.”

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the injured party, he thought that he will use the money as a living expense, etc., and he did not think that he will use it as an additional construction cost.

Nevertheless, on April 16, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim, received 20 million won from the Saemaul Treasury Account (H) in the name of the Defendant under the name of the Defendant for the additional construction cost of Newly-built G lending on April 16, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and I;

1. A loan contract and a certificate of confirmation of transfer;

1. Previous conviction: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, one copy of the judgment, and the result of case search;

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. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

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

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s argument regarding the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not the Defendant at the time to borrow money from the injured party under the name of the remainder of the construction cost of G new loan, but the Defendant borrowed money in the name of living expenses due to financial standing, etc. at that time. Around that time, the Defendant is detained in another case and the person under the name of the construction of a newly-built loan.