A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 2015, the Defendant borrowed money to the victim E who became aware of through his own seal in Sanyang-gu, Sanyang-gu, Sanyang-gu, Sanyang-gu, Mayang-gu, 2015, for the following reasons: (a) the Defendant is entering the position to re-construction with the failure to perform construction works; (b) the lack of the construction funds; and (c) the construction works

The phrase “the phrase was false.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any particular monthly income and property and did not have any money to commence construction due to the lack of credit standing, and thus did not have any intent or ability to pay the money to the injured party even if he received the money.

As above, the Defendant was paid KRW 20 million as the construction cost on August 20, 2015 by deceiving the victim, thereby deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. The accusation (the defendant and his defense counsel denied the criminal intent of defraudation by asserting that the defendant was dismissed from the office of the representative director of the F, and that the defendant was unable to pay the money to the victim because he had concluded a contract for the supply of and demand for construction works from G on July 16, 2015, when he was in office as the representative director of the F (hereinafter referred to as the "F"), and has borrowed money from the victim to prepare expenses necessary for the performance of the construction works. The defendant planned to pay the money from the damaged party immediately upon the receipt of the payment of the above construction works or other completed construction works, but he failed to pay the money from the damaged party on Nov. 2015, 2015, because he was dismissed from the office of the F, and thereby lost the right to receive the payment of the construction works executed in F's name. However, according to evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the above argument is without merit).

Application of Statutes

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.Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution (hereinafter referred to as the following):