If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On January 5, 2011, the Defendant stated that “In a restaurant where the trade name in the vicinity of Gwangju City is unknown, the victim C works as the vice president of the D Company and the general manager in charge of the field. From the end of February 2011, the D Company is scheduled to perform E construction work, and if the construction commences, the construction is scheduled to change KRW 25 million as the premium in the construction site.”

However, there was no intention or ability of the victim to grant the right to operate the bridge in the field of civil works because the D Company received orders for E civil works.

In this year, the Defendant received from the victim a copy of the check of KRW 5 million from tin in the name of the down payment for the operation of the restaurant, i.e., the down payment.

1.20. 20. 5 million won for the Agricultural Cooperative Account in F name, and the same year;

3.1. At least two million won in the name of G NongHyup account, and the same year.

4.25. A total of KRW 12.5 million was received on four occasions, including the receipt of 500,000 won in the Agricultural Cooperative Account in G.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and H;

1. Partial statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to F of the protocol of suspect examination of the police officer;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of a workhouse

1. Although the alleged defendant recognizes that he/she received money from the victim, he/she does not deceiving the victim.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the judgment, namely, the Defendant: (a) the Defendant is entitled to give the victim the right to operate a restaurant (see, e.g., the Defendant’s statement, etc. in the Investigation Record No. 28); (b) the Defendant merely ordered the cryp construction and did not receive any civil works; and (c) the Defendant was not scheduled to do so.