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 became final and conclusive.

(e).

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On November 22, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Incheon District Court on June 2, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 30, 2013. On November 26, 2014, the same court sentenced one year to imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the same court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 4, 2014.

[Criminal facts]

1. The Defendant, as the actual owner of E’s interest for the Chairperson, a corporation with the five story of Seoul Nam-gu D shopping mall, concluded a subcontract for the foregoing D shopping mall removal construction work with F, and the Defendant said F to “F to change the removal construction cost to KRW 20 million.”

On May 22, 2012, F entered into a contract for the removal of the said D shopping mall with the victim G around May 2, 2012.

However, in fact, the defendant did not obtain the consent from the owners of the above D shopping mall stores, and even if the auction is in progress, it did not have any condition to carry out the removal work, he would give the above F a removal work for the five stories of the D shopping mall.

It was false that F entered into a subcontract between the victim and the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim through F, received money of KRW 10 million from the victim to the new bank account in the above F on May 22, 2012 from the victim to the new bank account in the above F on or around May 22, 201.

2. On June 25, 2012, the Defendant “Around June 25, 2012, the Defendant requires the victim to operate the Nice Office’s office to begin with the Corporation after the day.

A loan of KRW 3 million shall be repaid after one week.

“A false representation was made.”

However, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to carry out the removal work even if he received the money from the injured party because it is not the condition to carry out the removal work like the above paragraph 1.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 3 million won from the victim to the national bank account under the name of the E Co., Ltd. on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant in the fourth public trial protocol;