Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On January 16, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment due to occupational breach of trust, etc. by the Seoul High Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 12, 2018.

On October 16, 2015, the Defendant appears to have written “C” written in the E indictment to the victim D within the coal mine area of the Sincheon-gun, Seoul around 16, 2015.

The ownership in this section is also owned by the mining right.

The purpose of this study was to “to pay the amount of the cater to be cut off within 15 days after the completion of the work, on the face of the main work of cutting off the cater and the cateral destruction work.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have ownership and mining right of the above land, and even if the victim did not have any specific property and import, there was no intention or ability to pay the price.

Defendant deceiving the victim as above and had the victim do so from October 16, 2015 to December 7, 2015, and acquired financial benefits equivalent to KRW 10,750,000 from that time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. Standard construction lease agreement;

1. A list of persons with a seizure right of one million tons prior to the selection of ships and the amount thereof;

1. The District Court (G Ruling);

1. Previous convictions: (A) a criminal history and a written reply to inquiry; and (2) a written judgment bound in the public trial records [the defendant actually worked for six days and paid in full the amount equivalent to the above number of days as a down payment in advance on October 21, 2015. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it can be recognized that the defendant and the victim had carried out excavation work at the same time from 2014. However, the victim received money in advance under the name of advance payment prior to work with the defendant, rather than in this case.