A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On March 29, 2012, at the D hotel coffee shop located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 29, 2012, the Defendant borrowed money to the victim E to give a subcontract for the said part of the construction work for the project moving to the school, as the Defendant “in Korea entered into a contract for the project with the F adviser of C of C of C, and is responsible for the construction work with the G representative director, if he/she lends money to the victim E, he/she will give a subcontract for the said construction work and pay the payment for the completed portion.”

However, since the defendant was not delegated by G representative, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to enter into a contract to perform the above subcontract work for the previous construction work.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 30 million from the victim to the new bank account in the name of the Defendant.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. The statements of witnesses H, I and E in the third protocol of trial;

1. Statement made by a witness F in the sixth trial records;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they did not demand the defendant to deliver money directly to the victim, or did not have any criminal intent to obtain money by deception, and that the defendant did not have any criminal intent to obtain money by deception. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., at the time of the delivery of the money in this case, the transfer of the money in this case to the schools where the defendant was fright, fright, and frighted and frighted (hereinafter “the construction in this case”).

The G did not have the authority to receive the contract for the instant construction in the name of G, and the F did not have the authority to receive the contract for the instant construction.