A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as the owner of the new construction of the Dong-gu B accommodation, in Yandong-gu B accommodation, contracted the construction of the new construction to C Co., Ltd. (D), a victimized company, and did not pay the construction cost of KRW 482,058,145 even after the completion of March 4, 2016. As the damaged company failed to pay the construction cost of KRW 482,05,145, the Defendant’s co-ownership of KRW 99/100 out of the land B in Yan-gu, Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul.

On March 21, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to G (a) who actually operates a damaged company in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, that “I will obtain a loan from the damaged company, and pay the total construction cost of KRW 482,058,145 in the top priority.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the construction cost to the damaged company because the damaged company is scheduled to use it first for other purposes even if the damaged company receives a real estate collateral loan by cancelling provisional seizure.

On March 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the above G; and (b) obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount as G did not fully pay KRW 434,934,145 for the remaining construction cost, even if G was subject to a loan by rescinding a provisional attachment against the said accommodation facility.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion on the agreement, notarial deed, decision on provisional seizure against immovables 2016Kadan1025, the letter of withdrawal and cancellation of provisional seizure against immovables, and the full certificate of registered matters

1. The defendant asserts that, unlike the expected amount, there was no criminal intent to acquire money by deceit, even though he did not pay less loans and construction cost.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, the defendant's pecuniary interest equivalent to the same amount is not paid with construction cost by deceiving G and not paying back KRW 434,934,145.