A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 27, 2013, the Defendant supplied and supplied the construction cost of KRW 24.5 million for the reconstruction of three floors among the three-story houses owned by D in Ulsan-gun E, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun.

1. On July 2013, 2013, the Defendant received construction expenses from the victim G’s office located in the Hamsan-si F, Yangyang-si, the Defendant would offer KRW 3.5 million out of the construction expenses from D on the ground that the said house remodeling construction works would cover the said construction expenses.

“A false statement” was made.

However, in fact, the lending company did not pay more than KRW 10,000,000 from the lending company, and it was thought that it will be used for the repayment of other obligations of the defendant even after receiving the construction cost from D, and there was no intention or ability to pay the construction cost to the victim.

As above, the Defendant: (a) informed the victim of such deception; and (b) had the victim do so from July 27, 2013 to September 12, 2013; and (c) did not pay KRW 3.5 million for the said rebuilding construction cost; and (b) obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the said amount.

2. On July 2013, the Defendant, at the victim I’s office located in Yangyang-si, Yangyang-si, Yangyang-si, 2013, would pay construction costs to the victim “D-owned housing reconstruction construction works, during the housing remodeling construction works, and upon receiving construction cost from D on the face of the week.

“A false statement” was made.

However, for the reasons of Paragraph 1, there was no intention or ability to pay construction cost to the victim.

Around August 2013, the Defendant: (a) deceiving the victim as above; (b) had the victim perform steel-frame construction during the said remodeling construction; and (c) did not pay 4.4 million won out of the construction cost to the victim; and (d) obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount.

3. On July 2013, the Defendant would pay construction cost by receiving construction cost from D on the face of the week after performing a change and different work during the reconstruction of D-owned housing construction work.

“A false statement” was made.

(b).