A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for six months, for each of the defendants B.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[2014 Highest 3688] On November 14, 2013, Defendant A stated that “The victim E issued an electronic bill equivalent to KRW 328 million in face value, 50% of face value of the bill shall be paid in cash within two days from the date of issuance, and 50% shall be paid in cash before maturity after the Defendant used it.”

However, even if the Defendant received a bill from the victim, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay 50% of the face value of the bill to the victim in cash within two days, because the Defendant was supplied F with 50% of the face value from F, and the remaining 50% of the face value was the intention to use F.

The Defendant received from the victim one copy of the electronic bill number G, the date of issuance on Nov. 14, 2013, Feb. 22, 2014, the face value of which is 328 million won, from the victim as the agricultural bank account, and acquired it by fraud.

[2014 Highest 4392]: Defendant A’s representative director of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) and Defendant B, as the managing director of H, agreed that the Defendants would give a subcontract for reinforced concrete construction to the victim I and would receive KRW 20 million from the victim I to use it as the operating expenses of H.

Accordingly, Defendant B said, around May 24, 2013, at the H office of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Defendant B concluded that “H was awarded a contract for the construction of Pyeongtaek-si K main complex, and that “W will subcontract the construction of reinforced concrete on the face of the main house by borrowing KRW 30 million from the victim.”

However, the above construction site was suspended due to the exercise of lien, etc., and it was unclear whether or not the construction is resumed. Since the Defendants were unable to discount bills paid to L Co., Ltd., the implementer for the re-execution of the construction project and the construction contract was rescinded, the Defendants, even if receiving money from the victim, were to build reinforced concrete construction works.