A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant received three glass construction subcontracting from the Victim B Co., Ltd., “C Hospital noise pressure isolation wards”, “D neighborhood living facilities”, and “E”, and received all payment of KRW 4,59,000,000,000 from November 10, 2017 to February 23, 2018 during the said three sites of glass construction work, but did not receive construction work payment at D and E site. As such, the Defendant did not receive construction payment order.

On July 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) filed an application for payment order with the Daejeon District Court located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon (Seoul District Court Decision 2018Da3364), stating that “The Defendant shall pay the Victim Company KRW 22,00,000,000, and the total amount of KRW 43,560,000,00,000,000, of the cost of the cost of the glass Living Facilities in the Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu; and (b) filed an objection with the Defendant to the effect that the Victim Company fully paid the cost of the said payment order; and (c) submitted a written estimate to the said court around June 7, 2019, that the cost of the construction received from the Victim Company is KRW 41,80,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the “C hospital’s “The cost of the cost of the construction work”.

However, in fact, the Defendant received not only the full payment of the construction cost at three construction sites, but also the said “C Hospital Embaly Dempiced Diseasehouse” amounted to KRW 4,160,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the said estimate that caused the said construction cost to be KRW 41,80,000 (excluding value-added tax) was false.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the above court and receiving a final payment order that became final and conclusive by the court, attempted to obtain 43,560,000 won from the victim company, but the Defendant did not bring about such intent with the wind that the victim company raised an objection and did not actively dispute.

Summary of Evidence

1. The part concerning H and I's statement of each police's suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant in the court's statement

1. The police statement of H. H.