Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

On April 2, 2012, the Defendant heard from C the victim C that he applied for permission to construct a new house on the land of Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Sungnam-si, and stated that “The Defendant would obtain permission from the Defendant Company,” and that “the Defendant would give the victim a telephone around June 13, 2012, and changed two million won of the test cost to be approved by June 25, 2012.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to obtain the authorization and permission from the victim, and the debt exceeds 4-50 million won, while the defendant did not have the intention or ability to return two million won to the victim if the victim did not obtain the authorization and permission due to no particular property.

On June 13, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 2 million from the victim as the cost of permission for construction work and acquired it by deception.

Summary of Evidence

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to a duplicate of passbook and PM service contract (25 pages of investigation records);

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime and Article 347 (1) of the Selection of Fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged that the defendant did not receive money in the name of the authorization cost from the victim. However, according to the evidence established above, the above argument is not acceptable, since the facts charged in this case