However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On March 2016, the Defendant entered into an oral contract with the representative of the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) who was entering into a subcontract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) (hereinafter “C”) that was entering into a new construction project, among the new construction projects of the Gyeonggi-do, in the construction project of the construction project of the construction project of the construction project of the construction project of the construction project of the building project of the building project of the building project of the building project of the building project of the building site of the construction site of the construction project of the construction project of the building project of the building project of the building site of the building site of the construction project of the building project of the building site of the building site of

From May 30, 2016 to June 2016, the Defendant: (a) drafted a false labor contract as if the F had worked on the said construction site; and (b) requested the victim to pay the F-5-month labor cost by submitting it to the victim; and (c) received from the victim KRW 3,988,730 as labor expense for the amount of May 30, 2016 from the victim to the F-based account in the name of F, and acquired it by deceiving the victim as stated in the attached list of crimes from August 3, 2016 to by deceiving him/her as a sum of KRW 16,976,610.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of G, F, and H;

1. A criminal investigation report (CF with the chief of the Department of the I Corporation), a criminal investigation report (in the currency of the complainant E), a criminal investigation report (in the opinion of the J);

1. Each employment contract;

1. Each K Bank, L, the Defendant, and the defense counsel received labor cost claims by the Defendant by false means as stated in its reasoning. However, the Defendant, as the contractor, obtained the remainder of the cost calculated by deducting 5% of the cost of the victim’s part of the construction cost to be paid to the victim according to the c, which is the contractor, from the cost of the construction.