A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

An application filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

To the extent that the basic facts of the facts charged are not likely to result in a substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense within the same extent, the criminal facts are recognized as partially different from the

1. In the event that the Defendant was entrusted with construction works by making a false statement that he/she would have engaged in the construction business with the trade name of “E” in “Y” in “Y” in Ansan-gu, and that he/she would have been entrusted with construction works without the intent or ability to complete the construction works as agreed upon by the person who requested construction works, such as interior terms, he/she was aware of the intention to acquire the construction cost by carrying out only a part of the construction works and suspending and

On July 25, 2011, the Defendant received a request from the Victim F to perform a waterproof construction work on the rooftop G from the Victim F, and carried out a string construction by walking with the flag on the rooftop and walking with the string, and without covering the string with the string.

On September 17, 2011, the Defendant continued to conclude the above construction work if the Defendant paid KRW 1 million to the victim H of the victim F upon the request of the victim H for the completion of the relevant rooftop waterproof construction work.

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to complete the above construction.

Ultimately, as above, the Defendant, by deceiving the Victim F and H, received KRW 1380,00 from the Victim F on July 26, 201, and received KRW 17,00,000 from the Victim H on September 17, 201.

The Defendant, including that, from July 26, 201 to October 8, 2013, indicated in the annexed list of crimes: Provided, That the phrase “ October 23, 2011” in the table of crimes Nos. 2 appears to be a clerical error in the phrase “ October 31, 2011” (see the evidence Nos. 77 and the police statement against No. 79). Since it is deemed that there is no concern that the Defendant would have any substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense, the Defendant shall be deemed to be dismissed on October 31, 201, without any changes in indictment.

. As such.