A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was working as a working group at the construction site of the apartment apartment constructed in D after the construction of the LH was implemented by the EL located in the Pakistan-si.

On February 2, 2011, the Defendant stated that “Second, I would accept the right of operation so that H’s management may operate a brine in G because I are working in G. He knows well about H’s management at the G construction site. In addition, I would like to change KRW 30 million under the name of a deposit to be granted a brine in H apartment construction site located in the Hasung city.”

However, the fact was that the second child of the defendant was not an employee of G, and even if the victim received money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to receive the right to operate the restaurant.

Accordingly, around February 7, 2011 from the victim, KRW 10 million from the Japanese bank account (I) in the name of the defendant, and KRW 10 million from the 25th day of the same month;

3. received around 23.2 million won.

The Defendant made a false statement to the above victim that “if it is necessary to obtain the right to operate the restaurant, additional money is added to the money,” and received KRW 15 million from the victim to the said account on April 11, 201, KRW 5 million around May 18, 2011, KRW 10 million around June 2, 201, KRW 3 million around June 10, 201, KRW 3 million around September 26, 201, KRW 200,000 around September 26, 201, and KRW 500,000 around December 28, 201.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired the total sum of KRW 68.5 million from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each account transaction statement and a copy of remittance certificate;

1. Relevant legal provisions on criminal facts: The fact that there is no agreement with the victim on the reason of sentencing under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, the amount of damage is small, the method of crime and the place of use of the damaged amount, etc. are not good, the defendant recognized the facts charged, and is against the law, and the defendant is relatively old, and the sentence is a relatively old.