A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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 January 29, 2013, the Defendant agreed to perform the civil engineering works of the victim-owned forests and fields in E, F, and G on the following occasions in the Defendant’s office located in Gongju City around January 29, 2013. On behalf of the construction cost, the Defendant was paid as a substitute for the land of H, I, J, K, and L.

As a result, the Defendant said, around April 12, 2013, that “Around April 12, 2013, the Defendant continued to proceed with the construction upon receiving KRW 210,000,000 from the victim as collateral the land that was to receive as a substitute.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had a personal obligation of 150 million won or more, and the Defendant was unable to pay 30 million or more per month installments of dump trucks and heavy equipment, etc. so there was no intention or ability to normally carry out construction work even if he received the above construction payment from the Defendant.

The defendant had the victim provide the above land as a security by the community credit cooperatives in the same day, and received a loan of KRW 210 million from the victim to acquire property profits equivalent to the above amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, M and N;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the Corporation for the creation of a house site for official stock ownership by filing a complaint (including accompanying documents under subparagraphs 2 through 4), comprehensive credit report, details of account transactions, and official stock ownership by applying

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

1. Judgment on the defendant's assertion under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. The principal director had the intent or ability to carry out the construction at the time of the instant loan, and the construction was interrupted due to external circumstances at the time, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this Court, the Defendant was operating a number of companies under the name of the Defendant, his wife, mother, etc. at the time of receiving the supply of the instant civil works, and the Defendant was operating the said companies.