A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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 July 28, 2015, the Defendant agreed to construct the said off-to-date 20 million won for the construction cost at the coffee shop near the third new construction site of the 3-story located in S&C construction site in S&D, E, and F. The Defendant agreed to construct the said off-to-date 20 million won for construction cost.

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant had received the above construction cost from the injured party and thought to use it entirely at another construction site, and had no intention or ability to normally carry out the above structural construction because of the economic situation to the extent that the above construction site was unable to pay the wages properly.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 50 million from the victim under the pretext of the advance payment under the contract.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to accusation, construction contract, and transaction statement;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 32 subparag. 3, 32 subparag. 2, and 25 subparag. 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuit for Dismissal of Application for Compensation

1. The main point of the assertion is that the victim was unable to drive away from the site while faithfully performing construction work according to the construction contract with the victim, and there was no criminal intent of defraudation.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the court held that the Defendant had to complete the structural construction before the end of August 2015 and complete the structural construction.

8. The fact that he had been staying in the middle of the first floor, and even after the Defendant received the down payment of KRW 50 million from the injured party under the above framework construction contract, he did not pay the temporary material cost and labor cost of the instant construction work to the victim, and prepared a written consent for direct payment at the site.