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 became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant of "2013 Highest 337" is a person who was or was a representative director of a D Co., Ltd.

1. Around May 16, 2011, the Defendant, at the D office located in the office of Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City F building A 201, said that “The owner of the F building A subcontracted the construction work that is the Incheon Southern-gu Office, Incheon, Dong-gu, Incheon.” The construction cost, if the construction work was actually subcontracted in a lump sum from G, will be paid at the rate of receiving progress payment from the original office “H”.

However, in fact, the Defendant Company was running the construction site in the form of so-called “debrising” because enormous bonds up to KRW 1.5 billion were accumulated, and the advance payment received from the Defendant or the progress payment received from H, the original contractor, etc., cannot be used as the Defendant’s repayment of bonds or construction cost in another construction site. Therefore, even if the victim is required to perform construction works, there was no intent or ability to pay the construction cost normally.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim proceed with the above construction work, and had the victim acquire pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount by failing to pay construction cost of KRW 11,726,444 to the victim.

2. On October 201, 201, the Defendant: (a) stated that “The victim I would supply the materials for construction works necessary for the Incheon-si J Multi-Purpose Community Center and the Defense Acquisition Program; and (b) would pay the prime cost of the materials.”

However, as above, the defendant's company has operated the construction site in the form of return prevention in the situation where the enemy is accumulated, so even if the material is supplied by the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay the cost of the material normally.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above.