However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On August 31, 2011, the Defendant at the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office D 415 E around August 31, 201, “The present F is not adequate for financial standing.

Since the payment of promissory notes issued in advance is a settlement, it is urgently needed to pay money.

In the bill of indictment that a promissory note issued by F will be settled within the due date of the payment, in addition to the contents of deception, the defendant will give a subcontract for the civil works of LAD to the PAD on the face of the State at the discount of the promissory note in addition to the contents stated in the ruling.

Although the phrase "" was indicated as one of the victims' police investigations, the statement is made at the time of the victim's police investigation ("the defendant would give a subcontract for money when he/she takes charge of civil engineering works at LU.D.).

“Neither the bill discount nor the bill discount is given”

In relation to the question of the investigator, “I do not say that I would like to talk about the question of the investigator, “I would like to talk about it at ordinary times, and I would like to do so at a discount of bill.”

“The statement was made”.

In light of the list 19,97 pages) of evidence or the content of the statement in the court, it is found that the defendant made the above statement to the victim or the victim caused the above speech to the victim to discount the bill to the defendant.

It is difficult to see that other evidence submitted was proven without reasonable doubt even if the other evidence submitted was considered as a whole.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, it is necessary to delete some of the facts charged to the extent that there is no disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, thereby recognizing criminal facts differently.

However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to make payment within the due date, even if a promissory note is discounted by the injured party in F’s name due to the deepening of F’s financing.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and is therefore subject to a discount of promissory notes (G) with a face value of KRW 50 million from the injured party. 30 million on August 31, 201. < Amended by Act No. 11000, Aug. 31, 2011>