A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant and the victim C are inter-regional ex post facto distribution.

On March 2015, the Defendant and the victim entered into a contract for construction works and entered into a joint agreement to operate a construction corporation by jointly taking charge of the overall management of the company, including entering into a contract for construction works, and the victim entered into a contract with approximately KRW 7 billion to set up KRW 150 million for a construction business license purchase fund, which is capable of being awarded a contract for construction works.

Since then, when the victim failed to raise funds to purchase a construction business license and eventually failed to lend a license, the defendant requested the victim to change various expenses incurred in relation to the operation of the construction corporation so far on August 2015, but the victim rejected it on the ground that the details of expenditure are unclear.

On January 2016, the Defendant borrowed money from the bond company D to pay various expenses related to the operation of the corporation with the money to the victim on the ground that he provided the money to purchase a construction business license, and gave instructions to urge the victim to be detained due to his failure to pay the money.

If Nim lent lent money, he said that he would repay his corporate debt with the money and repay it by the end of April 2016.

However, the Defendant did not borrow money from a bond company with respect to a partnership business with the victim, and was thought to use the money borrowed from the victim as personal debt repayment, not the preservation of expenses disbursed in connection with the partnership business with the victim. D, which the Defendant called the bond company, was managed by the Defendant as the Defendant’s branch rather than the bond company, and since the construction company at the time was operated by the Defendant could not properly proceed with the construction due to the lack of circumstances, there was no intention or ability to repay the money from the victim by the end of April 2016, even if it borrowed money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above.