A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who actually operates D Co., Ltd. in Chungcheongnam-nam Budget Group C.

On April 6, 2014, the Defendant: (a) ordered F to enter into a contract for the supply of ten-day material to the victim G in cash, as if it were to pay the material price to the victim G at the site of Sejong-si E in cash.

However, in fact, the above Corporation D did not have the intent or ability to pay the material price to the victim even if it received the work price from the budget group because it was difficult for the Corporation to pay the work price of KRW 430,000,000 from the (State) around February 2012 due to the failure of the Corporation to pay the work price of KRW 430,000 with respect to the I New Construction.

As above, the defendant could not pay the amount to the victim, even though he received the delivery of the total amount of 1,850 M of the mission equivalent to the market value of KRW 13,227,50 from the injured party.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Each content certificate, accusation statement, judgment text, investigation report (netly 22,27) (the defendant had no intention to commit fraud)

However, in light of the above evidence, the defendant and D's obligations, the process of the creditors' seizure decision on D's claims, the progress of the three-dimensional construction works ordered by the above company, the amount of the construction cost already received by the defendant while carrying out the above construction and its disposition, etc., at the time, there was an intention to recognize the possibility that at least the defendant could not pay the material price of the damaged person at the time and to allow the risk, i.e., dolusent intent.

Inasmuch as it is sufficient to view the above argument, we cannot accept the above argument.

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The following circumstances are the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act.