A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On February 27, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract (the total construction cost of KRW 775 million) with the construction owner F and the construction of the G neighboring living facilities and the new construction of the Ansan-gu multi-family house (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the owner of the building around G and the owner of the building around 301, the Defendant entered into a contract (the total construction cost of KRW 75 million).

At the above E office around April 13, 2012, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Victim’s (State) employees in the name and influencies of the United Nations (the total construction amount of KRW 37 million) will be changed.” On the 20th day of each month, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant would make payment without a mold within the 10th day of the following month upon the Defendant’s claim for a fluenity payment.”

However, the Defendant had been operating the company without any particular property at the time in bad credit condition, and had been operating the company in a timely state to the extent that he could not pay 70 million in arrears wages that occurred around July 2009. Thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the construction price normally to the victim.

Nevertheless, Defendant 1 made a false statement to the victim, and caused the victim to perform the installation work from around that time to September 13, 2012, and, as the victim who did not receive the payment of the completed construction cost was suspended, Defendant 1 would pay the victim the total amount of the construction cost along with the additional construction cost up to October 9, 2012, upon completion of the construction work.

In this respect, the victim made a false statement and caused the victim to do additional work.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, has taken a total of 37,112,088 won property interest.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement in the trial record No. 2013 and No. 54 dated 2013 to the accused by each court of the witness I, J and K, and the text of the judgment (2013 High Court Decision 54);

1. Statement made by the prosecution against the defendant ( July 20, 2012)

1. The Defendant’s written statement ( March 15, 2013) process deed ( September 13, 2012), each standard subcontract agreement for construction works ( April 13, 2012), and standard contract for private construction works (contract for construction works).