A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

On March 20, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Ulsan District Court, which became final and conclusive on the 28th of the same month.

At the end of January 2008, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim E (the 46-year old-old) under the construction contract with the reconstruction association and the executor, and the construction contract was made at KRW 95,000 per square year, which would be re-subcontracted for KRW 80,000, and the expenses used by the association members and the president of the association were required.

However, even if the victim received money, there was no intention or ability to re-subcontract the construction work.

On February 4, 2008, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 7.5 million won in total from the Defendant’s post office passbook (Account Number G) for expenses, and received 12.8 million won in total over 43 times until March 16, 2009, as shown in the attached list, as shown in the attached list.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by witnesses E in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Each legal statement of the witness H, I, J, K and L;

1. Each contract agreement on construction works, receipts, agreement, and specification of transactions;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on each investigation report (the confirmation of the date of confirmation, the analysis of transaction particulars, etc.) and the defendant's assertion. The defendant also belonged to the end of H and J that the reconstruction association and the executor were awarded a contract for reconstruction removal work before May 2008, and thus, it is not a crime of fraud as to the attached list 1 to 15 of the crime list corresponding to the above period.

In full view of the results of the hearing of this case, until April 2008, the defendant believed that the defendant had lawfully concluded H and J reconstruction removal works. However, when considering the statements and police investigation reports (such as analysis of transaction details) by H and J, the defendant is the head of the association and association from the victim.