A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

From August 2012, the Defendant operated a human body construction business with D’s trade name in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Mangsan-si C.

On April 11, 2014, the Defendant concluded that “F value division” located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, would have the victim G conclude that “If the Defendant entered into a human rights construction contract and pays the construction cost of KRW 29,300,000, the Defendant would have the human rights construction work executed by May 6, 2014.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to perform artificial insemination work even if he received the construction cost from the victim, as he did not have any intention or ability to pay the interest, because the Defendant had an obligation equivalent to approximately KRW 80,000,000 due to a hostile accumulated risk, and there is no other property to pay the interest rapidly.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 14,650,000 won from the victim to the corporate bank account (H) under the name of the Defendant for the purpose of the construction cost from the victim, i.e., transfer of KRW 11,930,000 in total to the said account on April 21, 2014, and transferred KRW 26,580,000 in terms of the construction cost.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. A contract for interior works;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning specification of transactions;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting the crime (generally, the choice of imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The method and means of committing the crime of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is inadequate, and the victim’s damage from the crime was not recovered even though the damage was not significant.

However, the execution of some construction works is carried out only once in consideration of the fact that the defendant is led to the confession of the crime, the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment in the past, and the gender, age, and economic situation of the defendant.