A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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

Criminal facts

The Defendant is a person who has served as a site manager of an electrical construction company at the site of a new construction company located in Gyeongbuk-gun, Northbuk-gun.

On October 2012, the Defendant introduced the Victim E, a removal construction business entity, from D (the chief of the general site office of the above construction site) on October 1, 2012, and sought a statement that the victim would receive a sub-subcontract for G construction at the place of meeting with D, victim, F (the chief of G construction supervision group in B), etc.

On April 2013, the Defendant called the victim to the effect that “Around April 2013, the Defendant, who is well aware of accommodation in the same terminal with F, who is the head of the G Construction Supervision Authority, was well aware of the accommodation, and also, the public officials in charge of the elderly military administration and the head of the supervision group, were given a rebates of KRW 5 million, and the construction was conducted in accordance with the electrical construction.” The Defendant said that “Around April 2013, the Defendant would have the victim be given a subcontract for G construction by paying to the public officials in charge of G construction in the elderly military administration, the F Supervision Authority and the head of the supervision group.”

However, even if the defendant received money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to receive a subcontract for G construction, and he was thought to use the money for personal purposes, such as educational expenses of the children.

Nevertheless, on April 23, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 10 million won in the name of rebates from the victim to the CT Bank account of I (former wife of the Defendant) on April 23, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes on the interrogation protocol of the accused to prosecution E

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act of the option of imprisonment;

2. The reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the offense is bad in light of the method and content of the instant crime, and that the Defendant had been punished as a crime of fraud in the past is an element of sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant acknowledged the facts charged of this case and agreed with the victim.