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

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

The Defendant, a person who operated the Defendant Company B, constructed a D Fishery Products Center from January 7, 2008 to August 28, 2008 at Boan City C.

Meanwhile, a bridge connected to the above bank was constructed from March 25, 2008 to December 2, 2009 by E Company, and it was not subcontracted to the Defendant.

Around February 4, 2007, the Defendant was expected to receive only the above fishery product center construction work, and the previous bridge construction work was intended to be used for the payment of value-added tax necessary to verify the capacity of receiving orders from the said fishery product center construction work. However, even though the Defendant received money from the victim, the Defendant was intended to use it for the payment of value-added tax necessary to prove the capacity of receiving orders from the said fishery product center construction work, the Defendant, who was unaware of such circumstances, was expected to have a fishery product center at home and to be in charge of the bridge construction before it, and then acquired a copy of the bridge and the preceding gas station construction from the victim as the price for the construction of the said fishery product center. The Defendant received 80 million won from the victim and received 1 million won check from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. F statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the loan certificate;

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The crime committed by defraudation of the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act falls under the category 1 of the General Fraud Crime Group on the sentencing guidelines, and the “victim’s intent not to punish” among the special persons who committed the crime is recognized. This can be assessed equally as the mitigation element of the act. As such, it falls under the mitigation area (one year or less of imprisonment).

The term "victim's intention not to punish" is generally negative for the main positive factors as to the suspension of execution.