1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years;

2. Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3.

Punishment of the crime

Around December 23, 2009, the Defendant: (a) at the D office operated by the Defendant located in Daejeon Seodong-gu Seoul Building 401 on December 23, 2009; and (b) at the victim E, “A bid was made by lending the business of collecting aggregate in F from the official city in official city in official city, and there is a need for KRW 500 million with the cost of the equipment for collecting aggregate. Although the amount of extraction from the above site is not so large, the amount of extraction from public officials in charge at official city in official city would increase the amount of extraction and request the public officials in charge to increase the amount of extraction; (b) was under discussion to enter into a contract for soil transport contract in the above site; (c) there is a final and conclusive situation equivalent to 80%; (d) if the contract with EK is concluded, the total amount of extraction of aggregate will be at least 70 million, and thus, large profits will be distributed in two years after the end of six months.”

However, in fact, the defendant had not been able to obtain a license for the construction business of civil engineering and construction in order to obtain a bid for the soil and sand transport business even with the Es. Construction at the time, the contract for the soil and sand transport business has not reached the stage of s.e., a license for the construction business of civil engineering and construction in order to obtain a bid for the said soil and sand transport business, because the defendant failed to meet the bidding qualification due to the lack of profitability in the bidding method of the above aggregate extraction business, and therefore there was no possibility that the above soil and sand transport business will be bidable. Accordingly, the defendant did not have the ability to proceed with the above business as explained to the victim.

The Defendant, as such, deceiving the victim and deceiving it from the victim, was KRW 100 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in H’s name designated by the Defendant on January 7, 2010, and the said Agricultural Cooperative under H’s name on January 22, 201.