Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] The defendant was sentenced to a fine of five million won for fraud at the Jung-gu District Court on April 8, 2004, and one year and six months for the same crime at the Seoul Central District Court on January 7, 2010.

4. 8. The judgment became final and conclusive and conclusive, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on July 9, 201 in the astronomical Prison.

[2] On December 2012, 2012, the Defendant heard that the test cost of “F” entertainment workers’ entertainment workers’ entertainment workers’ entertainment workers’ entertainment workers’ entertainment workers’ entertainment workers’ entertainment workers’ entertainment workers’ entertainment workers’ entertainment workers’ work is too much difficult at the main point of the “E’s operation” of the victim D, which is located in the Hanbuk-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Hahn-si.

The construction business operator does not pay any money that the construction business operator originally requests.

In this sense, since the project fund now needs to be set aside, there is a place where money is raised after 20 days since it was used for the project fund, and the project fund is used for the project fund from Na.

“On the 31st day of the same month, the Defendant was issued KRW 15 million to the Defendant’s account in the name of the G.

On January 2013, the Defendant continued to receive reimbursement of construction cost from the person who was injured by the middle police officer, and the Defendant would have to resolve the construction cost together with the amount of KRW 15 million, which was additionally borrowed from the beginning of the first half of the year.

“On the 16th day of the same month, the Plaintiff was issued KRW 20 million to the same G account in the same G name.

However, even if the construction cost is paid from the injured party at the time, the defendant only thought to use it as the defendant's business fund, and did not intend to use it for resolving the construction cost for the injured party.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and received 35 million won through two times from the injured party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Investigative reports, relevant official notices and stenographic records;

1. Each fact-finding certificate;

1. The reception;