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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of the limited company D (hereinafter referred to as "D") in South Won-si.

On September 26, 2014, the Defendant ordered the construction work from the former Do to KRW 127,228,500 for total construction cost. On October 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) requested that the damaged company (hereinafter “victim company”) execute the construction work of the said construction work on a deposit basis with the total construction cost of KRW 103,00,000; and (b) entered into an agreement between the damaged company and the damaged company to receive the construction cost claim from the former Do (hereinafter “instant construction contract claim”) to receive the entrusted construction cost (hereinafter “construction contract of this case”).

On November 6, 2014, in the case of the attachment and assignment order of claims No. 1082, the damage company received the determination of the attachment and assignment order of claims for the portion equivalent to KRW 103,00,000 of the construction cost as stipulated in the instant construction contract among the construction cost claims against Jeollabuk-do, and completed the said entrusted construction work until November 2014.

However, on October 8, 2014, prior to the conclusion of the instant construction contract, the Defendant had already received KRW 60 million, which is part of the claim for the construction payment of this case, from the North Do, prior to the conclusion of the instant construction contract. As for the claim for the construction payment of this case, there was a senior seizure creditor in accordance with the order of seizure and collection of the claim No. 982, other than the Seoul District Court support 2014, around October 15, 2014, the lower court did not have the validity of the assignment order of the damaged company on the claim for the construction payment of this case, and was unable to fully recover the construction payment entrusted by the victimized company through the instant construction payment claim.

Nevertheless, the defendant has such a fact.