A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. The defendant against the victim B was in collusion with C, and around January 2008, the defendant operated in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E office, and the fact was not at the time that the corporation was not designated as the executor of the project for the removal of the Songcheon Apartment Complex, which had already been reported on September 30, 2007, and the above corporation had already reported on the closure of the business, and therefore the victim had no intention or ability to reduce the subcontract for the removal of the above work, the defendant would subcontract the removal of the above work if the company had no intention or ability to do so.

‘Falsely speaking, it received eight million won around January 8, 2008 from the damaged person in return for the subcontract for the removal of construction works, and acquired it through a new bank account (F) in the name of the accused, with the sum of 12 million won around January 9, 2008 and 20 million won in total.

2. On February 4, 2008, the defrauded G was the defendant's office operated by Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H on or around February 4, 2008, and the facts were not promised by the defendant to select the defendant as the execution company of the above removal project from the name in the name in the name in which the defendant had the right to the J removal project in I and the above corporation has already reported the closure of business on September 30, 2007. Thus, the above corporation has already made a report on the closure of the above removal project. Accordingly, the victim did not have the intent or ability to give the victim a subcontract of the removal project, and therefore, the victim has the right to remove the above removal project that the chairperson in son-si has the right to do with I at his own expense only would be unconditional.

“Falsely speaking,” it received KRW 40 million from the damaged person as the price for the subcontract for the removal work, around February 4, 2008, KRW 4 million around March 5, 2008, KRW 1 million around the 12th day of the same month, KRW 1 million around the 13th day of the same month, KRW 1 million around the 17th day of the same month, KRW 1 million on the 17th day of the same month, and KRW 48 million in total on six occasions around the 26th day of the same month.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. B and G: