The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On May 15, 2012, the Defendant of the 2015 Highest 556 case was a person operating D Co., Ltd. at the time of permanent residence. From around May 15, 2012, the Defendant performed the 10 household construction work of E Co., Ltd. at the time of permanent residence (hereinafter “the instant electric source housing construction work”), and subcontracted to F and G, a construction business operator.

On July 2012, the Defendant requested the victim H who was introduced by G around July 2012 to perform construction works to reinforce the access road to the above electric source house and paid KRW 65 million for the construction cost upon completion of the construction works.

“Around August 2012, 2012, the victim again requested repair works for the road access to the above house and the “a construction cost shall be paid KRW 12 million upon completion of the construction work.”

“.....”

However, in fact, the Defendant was a bad credit holder at the time, and there was no record of D Co., Ltd., and it was extremely difficult to finance, and there was no funds that can be invested in the instant Electric Source Housing Corporation. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant was a plan to cover the construction cost with the loans and sales proceeds received after the completion of the construction work, but there was no specific loan plan or sale plan for electric source housing.

In fact, at the stage of commencing the instant electric power resource construction, the Defendant had not paid to the landowner I more than KRW 200 million, and the construction cost agreed to be paid to F and G is much more than KRW 1.12 billion, such as that the construction cost reaches KRW 1.120 million. However, around February 2013, the Defendant completed the five households of electric power resource housing, which are half of the entire construction work, and paid for the construction cost by receiving loans from the bank, was more than KRW 318 million, and the construction was suspended by exercising a lien on the site of the instant electric power resource site of the subcontractor who was not paid the construction cost at the time.

Therefore, even if the injured party completes the construction work requested, the defendant shall pay the construction cost normally.