Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On March 31, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim F at the “E” coffee shop located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-do, Sungnam-do, that the Defendant would give the victim F the right to operate the site restaurant at the construction site at the Sung-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sung-do, Sung-do.

However, the fact was that the construction project of the G construction project in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was promoted by H at the time, was unable to do so, and the financial condition of the said company was poor. Therefore, even if the Defendant received money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to grant the right to operate the on-site

Defendant 2010 from the victim

4.1.On-site restaurant deposit money, received KRW 30 million from the bank account in the name of the I bank account in the name of the I.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the agreement;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

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

1. The Defendant asserts that there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation at the time of the instant act. However, according to the agreement, the Defendant’s representative of the executor as the president of H Full-time president, stated that the Defendant is in a position to grant the right to operate the on-site restaurant to the victim. However, in fact, the on-site restaurant project promoted by J, which is the actual owner, was operated. According to the written agreement, the on-site restaurant project is required to be returned to the victim even after the lapse of six months. However, according to the written agreement, the on-site restaurant project is not commenced, the on-site restaurant is required to be returned to the victim even after the lapse of six months, but the full-time amount of damage was repaid, the amount to be returned to the victim upon the termination of the contract, and all the circumstances such as the use of the money divided by Defendant, J, and K.