except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant of "2011 Highest 3445" is a person who has served as the head of the victim (owner) D's site office from February 23, 2009 to December 20, 2010.

At the work site of the victim, the victim confirmed that the father affix a face photograph to the camera connected to the commuting inspection system at the time of commuting, and the defendant, the site manager, filed a claim for wages with the victim by arranging the attendance situation of the husband at one month.

The Defendant knew that the employee in charge of paying the victim’s wage does not check his photograph or attendance at work on a daily basis, and had the employee in charge of paying the victim take a photograph of the employee who did not work at work in the car camera, affixed it on behalf of other person than the pertinent seal, affixed a photograph on behalf of other person, and then arranged the material as if the other person was in attendance at work, thereby having the employee in charge of receiving the wage.

1. From October 1, 2009 to October 31, 2009, the Defendant: (a) had a person other than E at the construction site of the Bupyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City F new apartment at the construction site of Jungcheon-gu F new apartment; (b) had the victim affix a photograph to his commuting system camera as if he were E; and (c) on October 31, 2009, requested the victim to pay KRW 1,861,590 as E’s wage.

However, in fact, E did not have performed the work at the above site during the above period.

Around November 2009, the Defendant received KRW 1,861,590 from the victim under the pretext of E’s wage.

In addition, from around September 2010 to around September 2010, the Defendant was issued a total of KRW 12,471,910 as E’s wage from the victim by deceiving the victim in the same manner as indicated in the attached list 1 of crimes committed.

2. From May 14, 2010 to May 20, 2010, G wage fraud Defendant: (a) had a person, other than G, at the construction site of the Bupyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City F apartment construction site, affix photographs to G, and requested the victim to KRW 477,840 as G wage, as if he were G; and (b) around May 20, 2010, the Defendant applied for KRW 477,840 as G wage.

However, it is true.