Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is in charge of the construction of a studio construction site in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Songpa-gu, Seoul, a person in charge of the construction of another studio construction site (which was going from October 2

is the same.

On October 20, 2013, the Defendant would pay off the victim E, a “D restaurant operator” who provides meals to the said public officials at the construction site, to the victim E, who is a “D restaurant” operator, would bring about to the construction site “(other areas) food to the public.”

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the defendant, at the time of the immediately preceding construction work, had no intention or ability to pay the food expenses at the end of the month, even if he was provided with meals from the injured party, because the defendant instructed the money to the extent that the wages of the injured party could not be paid.

Defendant deceiving the victim as above and received 7 parts of 35,000 won at the market price on the same day from the victim, and acquired them by deception from the victim, as well as from December 4, 2013, the total market price of KRW 967,000 in total through 22 times, such as the list of crimes in attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A receipt (the defendant and defense counsel are not only responsible for the payment of the original recipient, but also the defendant is not paid the amount of meal to the victim because he/she failed to receive the construction cost from the original recipient even though he/she is responsible for the defendant

The argument is asserted.

In light of the overall purport of each of the above evidences, the victim was directly paid food for another subcontractor in the same construction site, and the site warden did not designate a restaurant in the currency with the investigator in the company.

The defendant has received the payment of the contract price for the other construction site from the original contractor, while he has not received the payment of the contract price for the other construction site, and the defendant is also the defendant.