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 becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On October 2, 2014, the Defendant made a telephone call to the victim C, stating that “(i) Es.S. and the main contractor (i.e., the main contractor) under the implementation of the existing Daegu-gu apartment site D apartment site construction is suspended due to dispute, and thus (ii) Es.A. and the main contractor (i.e., the main contractor) will carry out the implementation project on behalf of the State Es. I. In order to do so, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that the meal expenses for the employees of the Daegu-gu Urban Corporation, the land owner,

However, the Defendant did not have the authority to select the executor with respect to the apartment site D in Daegu-gun, and was aware that the contract for the designation of the executor was already terminated and that the project is being carried out at the same time, and thus, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to have the victim carry out the project. Thus, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to use the said money as the meal cost for the employees of the Daegu Urban Corporation.

On October 7, 2014, the Defendant received 3,000,000 won in the name of entertainment expenses from the Defendant’s bank account (Account Number E) from the victim.

2. On October 10, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the Defendant’s office located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-gu Seoul, stating that “The Daegu Urban Corporation employee was removed from office in bribe 52 million won from construction on the date of Japanese Construction, and the Japanese Construction Corporation may pay the said money to the Defendant, who is related to the Plaintiff, and who is the actual owner of the land related to the implementation project, shall pay the money to the Plaintiff.”

However, the defendant was unaware of whether the Daegu Urban Corporation employee was dismissed as a bribe, there was no possibility that Japan Construction will be excluded from the execution, and there was no intention or ability that the defendant would make the victim implement the project by granting money to the person in charge of the right to guarantee school which is the actual land owner related to the implementation project.

The defendant is against the victim on October 10, 2014, the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F.