A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

The facts charged are modified ex officio and the facts charged are recognized based on evidence.

On August 24, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for fraud in the Gwangju District Court's Netcheon Branch, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 30, 2016.

1. On June 19, 2015, the criminal defendant against the victim C is the victim’s “E” office operated by the victim C in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D on June 19, 2015 at the victim’s “F Company G G president and 30 years.”

F The F Company leased 172 square meters underground and 172 square meters 172 square meters 172 square meters 1744 square meters from the Seoul Government, which is owned by the Seoul Government, to ensure that the interior works equivalent to 5 billion won may be ordered.

First of all, the F company's personnel in charge should be given 500,000 won.

“A false representation was made.”

However, the defendant did not know the president of the FF company, and even if the defendant remitted the money under the name of the expense, he did not have the ability or intent to allow the victim to receive the interior works of the Seodaemun Design pluger.

As above, the defendant deceivings the above victim and transferred 5 million won to the H account under the name of H as the above expense from the victim.

As a result, the above defendant deceivingd the above victim and received property from the above victim.

2. On June 19, 2015, the Defendant attempted to commit fraud against the victim C, who appears to have an interest in the Posco project of the Posco in the Posco in the Posco at the above office, and thereafter, the Defendant called Posco I during the hearing of the victim C.

On June 25, 2015, Masco I and I have an occupation-oriented promise, and thus, on that day, I would like to make up for the amount of KRW 30 million up to that day."

However, the Defendant did not know and knew Masco I, and the Defendant did not have the ability or intent to allow Masco to receive orders from the above victim.

The Defendant visited the above office around June 25, 2015.