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

The Defendant, while engaging in construction business, operated D Lestop in Jin City C from July 2010 to July 2012.

However, the above Lestop received KRW 100 million for a premium from E on December 2012 and transferred the above Lestop to E on the condition that it would not be considered as a loss on or around December 2012, which was a situation in which employees' personnel expenses, food materials costs, and installation costs, etc. were not paid due to the proper operation of Estop. However, E who operated the above Lestop, was ultimately considered as a loss equivalent to KRW 100 million due

In addition, at that time, the Defendant’s debt owed to the Defendant’s mother-child’s head of the Tong in the name of the Defendant was KRW 57,00,000,000 or KRW 30,000,000,000,000, which is the total amount of the Defendant’s debt. Other credit cards and KRW 30,000,000 or KRW 40,000,000,000 were not paid to the Victim F, and not only the amount of the Defendant’s debt owed to the victim F, but also the amount of wages and retirement allowances paid to G, who was an employee of the above Lestop, was insufficient to pay the total amount of KRW 4,00,00 or KRW 3,000,00 per month. Therefore, even if the construction of this case was subcontracted

1. On November 2013, 2013, the Defendant: (a) stated in the indictment at the construction site of the construction site of the second floor commercial house located in J in J in J in J in J as “the construction site of the second floor commercial house located in J in Jin-si; (b) however, comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence in the judgment below, the Defendant appears to be “the construction site of the new commercial house located in Jin-si in Jin-si”; (c) it appears to be a clerical error.

From this point of view, the victim F made a false statement to the effect that “The victim F will pay KRW 65 million in total including KRW 40 million for the construction cost of the instant building and the construction cost of the previous private neighborhood living facilities, including KRW 25 million for the unpaid construction cost of the previous private neighborhood living facilities.”

However, the defendant is proceeding with the work without operating funds.