Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 13, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on August 10, 2013 by fraud, etc. at the Seoul Western District Court, which became final and conclusive on May 10, 2013.

The defendant and C are those operating the LABD, and the victim E is a company which entered into a contract with the FABD on March 18, 201.

On March 19, 201, the Defendant conspired with C and requested C to lend money at the office of the Defendant and C, the director in charge of accounting of the victim company, at the meeting of the office of the Defendant and C, at the fifth floor of the Suwon-gu G Building, as the cost of arranging the construction site.

However, even if the defendant and C have borrowed money from the victim company, they have used it as the expense of arranging the field of the F hotel, or have no capacity or intention to contract the F hotel to the victim company.

The Defendant, in collusion with C, by deceiving the victim company as above, received 10 million won from the victim company to transfer it to the third party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement C or I of the police interrogation protocol of the accused (one right, 129 pages of investigation record)

1. The police statement of H;

1. A complaint;

1. -The account details and slips copies, and account transfer records;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records, one summary order, and application of two copies of judgment and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 347 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act denies the consumption of deceptive money by the defendant for the reason of sentencing of sentencing of the provisional payment order. However, the confession is made instead of the crime, and the amount of the fine specified in the summary order shall be reduced in part by taking into account the equity in the case where the defendant was punished at the same time as the first criminal facts entered in the judgment of the post concurrent crimes.