beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.
However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. On June 20, 2014, the Defendant, against the victim B, called the victim B who operates a heavy equipment leasing business in the Busan Shipping Authority, and made a false statement to the effect that “Around June 20, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was scheduled to remove a building in the C system; (b) was paid KRW 1 million per day on the surface of a day with a locker as equipment cost; and (c) the equipment cost would be an interim settlement during work.”
However, there was no intention or ability to pay the cost of equipment to the victim even if the removal of the building was completed, because the building was not owned by C, and the defendant did not pay the cost of work that had been carried out in another place before the removal of the building.
Defendant deceiving the victim as above and caused the victim to do so from June 21, 2014 to June 26, 2014, the victim to be engaged in drilling operations at the site of demolition of the building located in Gyeongnam-si, Gyeongnam-si for a total of five days, and did not pay the victim KRW 5 million for the cost of the equipment, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to the same amount.
2. On June 27, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E, a middle equipment rental business operator, located in Busan, at the construction site for the removal of the building at issue, stating that “The Defendant would make an interim settlement of the cost of the removal of the building if the removal of the building was conducted by cutting off the building at this site from June 27, 2014 to July 5, 2014, including the cost of the removal of the building and the cost of transportation of the equipment KRW 4.9 million, and the cost of the removal of the building if the removal of the building was conducted by dump trucks.”
However, in fact, prior to the removal of the above building, the defendant was not able to pay the work cost that he had conducted in another place, and the damaged person was not fully paid 5 million won for the equipment cost that he promised to pay to the above B until the work was carried out.