On June 30, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the office run by the Defendant located in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju; (b) at the time the possibility of being awarded a contract for the removal of F in Gwangju Northern-gu, at the time was uncertain; (c) on the other hand, even if the Defendant was paid money under the name of the contract for the removal of scrap metal from the victim G, the Defendant thought to immediately use the money for other purposes; (d) did not intend to use the money for the removal construction; and (e) did not have any intent or ability to return the money of the contract for the sale of scrap metal received from the damaged victim; (e) the Defendant and the victim, the vice president of D, together with the victim, “(ju), will complete the removal construction from approximately one month after 1 month, and (e) 50 won per 1kg, regardless of the price of the scrap metal, regardless of the contract for the sale of scrap metal.

“Falsely speaking to the effect that it was “,” and as such, it received KRW 40 million from the injured party on the same day, and KRW 60 million on July 1, 2014, respectively, from the Gwangju Bank account in the name of D, and KRW 35 million on July 17, 2014, respectively, to the Gwangju Bank account in the name of D.

Accordingly, the defendant was given a total of KRW 135 million by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a deposit receipt, a summary, and a letter of commitment;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Reasons for sentencing selective imprisonment with prison labor;

1. The basic area (one year to four years) of two types of fraudulent offenses (at least 100 million won, less than 500 million won, and less than 500 million won) which are the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing criteria; and

2. Specific grounds for sentencing - favorable circumstances: The defendant reflects the crime of this case, and the reason why the defendant was unable to recover from damage seems to include the reason that the defendant suffered economic damage from others. - Unfavorable circumstances: the amount of damage is not significant and the damage is not recovered at all, the victim appears to have suffered serious economic and mental damage due to the crime of this case.