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

Even if the Defendant borrowed money from B that he came to know in the course of the construction relationship, the Defendant: (a) by arranging the unpaid debts, etc. to the existing construction works in relation to “D D D D D D D DD New Construction Works” on two parcels of land, and (b) by deceiving the E Co., Ltd. with the ownership of B to succeed to the above construction works; and (c) by inducing B to succeed to the above construction works without the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money; and (d) on June 16, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year at the Seoul Central District Court sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court, and on June 15, 2017, the judgment became final and conclusive, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the said one-year crime; and (b) was sentenced to criminal punishment due to the Defendant’s complaint on June 15, 2017.

On July 20, 2017, the Defendant filed a complaint with the public service center of the Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office located in Yongsan-gu, Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office to the effect that "The facts at the Gangnam Police Station around July 2013, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Defendant stating that "The Defendant Party B, who was the Defendant, issued the Defendant an amount of KRW 50 million under the name of the performance guarantee for construction works and did not meet the requirements for the refund of the deposit," even though it did not meet the requirements for the return of the deposit, the Defendant filed a false complaint with the Defendant to the effect that the amount that the money was paid to the complainant to receive the deposit is a loan that is not the performance guarantee for construction works, and ultimately, the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment for fraud."

However, in fact, the defendant did not file a false complaint because he did not only borrowed money but also did not have the intention of repayment or ability of the defendant at the time when he received the borrowed money.

The defendant is on the same day and at the same place.