A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 11, 2013, the Defendant of fraud, around September 11, 2013, made a false statement to the victim C at the instant coffee shop located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, stating that “The assets of Heung Total Construction Co., Ltd. (S., Ltd.) are KRW 2 billion and KRW 200 million may take over a construction license if he/she starts construction with a construction license for He/she has obtained a construction license for He/she has the right to construction. Upon commencement of construction with a construction license for He/she has obtained the construction cost, he/she may take over the remainder of the purchase fund by receiving the construction cost, and by receiving the payment of the remaining purchase fund. Since he/she has a large construction right, he/she will keep the construction volume.”

However, in fact, there was no plan to sell the company at the time, and the defendant thought that he would use the money received from the victim for personal purposes, and there was no intention or ability to acquire the company of social gathering comprehensive construction to the victim.

The Defendant received KRW 200,000,000 from the victim around that time, namely, KRW 200,000,000 from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. On September 27, 2013, at around 15:00 on September 26, 2013, the Defendant concluded that “Around September 2013, the Defendant would allow the Victim C’s Office of the third floor of the D Building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to receive a subcontract for electrical construction of KRW 10 billion from G Co., Ltd. through F, Inc., Ltd., a company implementing the Housing Site Development Zone in the lightyang-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government.”

However, in fact, since F Co., Ltd., a executing company, concluded a provisional contract with G Co., Ltd. as a contractor for the said housing site development zone, it was impossible to subcontract electrical construction without the consent of G Co., Ltd., a contractor, without the consent of the defendant. Even if the victim received money from the victim, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to accept the subcontract for electrical construction.

The defendant is against the victim on September 2013.