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

On March 20, 2013, the Defendant issued a false statement to the effect that “The monthly income was KRW 10 million when operating internal loan and penta,” which reads that “The Defendant would pay KRW 231 million for construction cost, including the Jeju-do value added tax, after completing the Multi-household Housing Construction by June 20, 2013.”

However, the Defendant started the construction business without any particular property, while taking part in the construction business, was in a situation where approximately KRW 700 million of bank obligations, KRW 900 million of personal obligations against the branch, and KRW 900 million of bank obligations, and the pension is already transferred to another person, and there is no relation with the Defendant, as it is not sufficient operational profit, and the monthly income is not high, and the mortgage was created in excess of KRW 600 million, and it is difficult to dispose of it within a rapid time due to the provisional attachment of several debtors, so the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the construction price to the victim at once even if the victim completes the pel construction.

The Defendant had the victim complete the structural construction work equivalent to KRW 231 million from the above date to June 3, 2013, and did not pay approximately KRW 82.8 million out of the construction cost and KRW 146.2 million as stated in the indictment in KRW 148.2 million. The Defendant did not pay KRW 148.2 million in the above indictment.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired financial benefits by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of witness D and E;

1. A contract agreement on construction works;

1. A certified copy of the register;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as F and A entrance fee joints;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. There is no fact that the defendant had tried to re-examine the victim as to the defendant's argument under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code, and the victim is once the victim.