A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, it is related to the credit of the steel bars in the middle of April 2017.

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 9, 2017, the Defendant, at the office of the victim C, located in Seo-gu Daejeon Daejeon, drafted a “standard contract for contract for private construction work” with the victim who suffered from the main building owner of the building “Seoul-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Multi-household Housing Construction Corporation” to receive the part of the said new construction work.

The main content of the above contract is that if the injured party pays the Defendant the construction cost equivalent to KRW 350 million in total according to the construction process, the Defendant completed the finishing construction excluding electricity, telecommunications, and fire fighting equipment from March 10, 2017, which was the date of commencement to June 10, 2017, on or after March 10, 2017. Of the construction cost, KRW 252 million shall be transferred to the person designated by the Defendant according to the construction process, and the ownership of the bonds of KRW 6,00,00,000,000 shall be paid in cash, and the remaining KRW 98,00,000 shall be paid in cash.

2. On March 2017, the Defendant related to KRW 10 million in the name of the construction cost, who was not performing a mash construction work under the said contract to a police officer on March 2, 2017, is demanding the victim to pay KRW 10,000,000 as the money needs to be paid to the victim for prompt implementation of the construction work. If the head of the Party does not pay cash, it is difficult to proceed with the construction work.

“Around March 29, 2017, the Plaintiff was transferred KRW 10 million to the F Bank Account (G) in the name of the Defendant from the injured party for the payment of the construction cost.

However, since the Defendant paid the construction cost of another construction site by the so-called “refusing” method at the time of receiving the said construction cost, the Defendant was thought to pay the money received from the injured party as the personal debt and the construction cost at the site where the construction is being carried out separately, even if he received the said money from the injured party, he did not have the intent or ability to use it as the construction cost related to the termination of the said contract