Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operated C Co., Ltd.

On October 6, 2012, the Defendant concluded a construction contract with another person on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff continued to incur interest on bank loans in C Co., Ltd.; and (b) the Defendant did not have an intent or ability to pay the construction cost as agreed upon; (c) and (d) concluded a construction contract with another person; and (d) concluded a false statement with the victim C Co., Ltd. F, Ltd. at the E repair Project site located in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, stating that “the payment of the construction cost

The Defendant entered into a contract with the victim for the construction cost of KRW 13,167,00 with respect to the construction work of the factory floor, the Embridge construction, and the existing office roof waterproof construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”), and was completed by the victim until November 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant had acquired financial benefits equivalent to 13,167,00 won by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on complaint, construction subcontract, and electronic tax invoices;

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

1. Selection of an alternative fine (amount of punishment, agreed points, criminal records, etc.);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, of the judgment on the criminal intent of defraudation under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the criminal’s financial history before and after the crime, the environment, the content of the crime, the process of performing transactions, etc. unless the criminal is led to the confession of the defendant. The criminal intent is not a conclusive intention, but a dolus

See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416 Decided February 28, 2008 and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8726 Decided August 21, 2008, etc., and the evidence duly adopted and examined at the trial.