Defendant 1 was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months for each of the crimes set forth in the first and second ruling of the case No. 3131 and the third of the ruling of the above case.

Punishment of the crime

On December 10, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud and two years of suspended execution at the Daegu District Court, which became final and conclusive on December 18, 2015, and is currently under suspended execution, and is the representative director of the Daegu District Court in charge of the settlement of accounts.

1. On May 2015, the Defendant, at a place where it is difficult to identify the victim D’s location, made a false statement to the victim D regarding the stud construction of the Daegu Suwon-gu E Studio that he subcontracted, stating, “When performing the construction of the 37 million construction cost, the total construction cost will be paid in advance and the remainder will be settled after the completion of the building.”

However, the Defendant, without any special property at the time, was in bad credit standing with approximately KRW 100 million, and even if he received the construction cost from the owner, he was thought to use it as the construction cost in another construction site, so the victim did not have the intent or ability to pay the construction cost even if he had the said construction work.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim, and had the victim do so from that time until July 2015; and (b) did not pay KRW 27 million out of the construction cost, the Defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to the said amount.

2. On November 25, 2015, the criminal defendant against the victim F made a false statement to the victim F who is the representative of “G” call to the victim F, stating that “I would pay a household by receiving a loan after the completion of the construction of the building if I deliver a household to the site of the Daegu Suwon-gu E Studio Construction Project.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was in bad credit standing with approximately KRW 100 million obligations without any special property at the time, and even if he was paid the construction price from the owner, he was willing to use it as the construction price at other construction sites, so even if he was supplied to the household from the victim.