A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 1, 2016, the Defendant displayed the standard contract form between the victim C’s branch office in Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon, that “If the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the removal of the Gilwon Housing Development Project at around December 30, 2014, and if the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20 million from the E, the Defendant would make a subcontract for the removal of the said removal work.”

However, in fact, the above contract was concluded on condition that the defendant lends KRW 30 million to H within 10 days to the (ju) E representative director H, and the defendant was already cancelled on March 2015 because he did not lend KRW 30 million to H according to the terms and conditions of the contract. Thus, even if he received money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to accept the above removal work.

Around April 1, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving it from the victim, KRW 10 million,00,000,000 from the J bank account under the name of the Defendant, designated by the Defendant, and KRW 4 million from the J Bank account under the above I on or around the 20th day of the same month; and

6. around 29. Around 29.20.m., received 6 million won in total from the remittance to the K Bank account in the name of the Defendant, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Each police statement about C, I, and L;

1. A copy of the standard contract for construction works and the standard contract for private construction works;

1. Details of transactions in each account;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime (the point of fraud and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act committed the instant crime again even though the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime, in light of the method and content of the instant crime, the nature of the crime is not good in light of the method and content thereof, and the damage has not been recovered properly, and the Defendant is working to recover damage, and considerable damage has been inflicted.