A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months.

The application for compensation of this case is dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On February 16, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on June 16, 201, which became final and conclusive on August 4, 201. On October 25, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced four years of imprisonment for fraud and two months of imprisonment, which became final and conclusive on January 23, 2014. On October 29, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and four months of imprisonment for fraud and became final and conclusive on July 10, 2015.

[2] The Defendant: (a) around February 5, 2010, at the office of the headquarters of the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government in the 7th floor of the same building, the Defendant delegated the victim C with the authority to select the construction company.

In order to lend KRW 50,000,000 to the head of the city, the head of the city made a false statement that the removal and civil engineering works will be performed during the redevelopment of D apartment units, and the said 50,000,000 won will also be paid at the time

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to cause removal and civil engineering works to the victim because he did not have been entrusted with the authority to remove the above construction works.

Nevertheless, on May 27, 2010, the Defendant was issued KRW 50 million to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant around May 27, 2010.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Details of deposit transactions and account details;

1. Each judgment;

1. A previous conviction: A criminal history inquiry and a report on the result of confirmation of the previous criminal records of the disposition [the defendant was only unable to repay due to the failure of the contractor at the time, and he did not have the intention of defraudation;

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the above evidence, the defendant did not have been entrusted with the authority to remove the redevelopment construction of the Busan Northern Complex at the time of the instant case, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the victim did not have the intent and ability to remove and perform civil engineering works.

Application of Statutes

1. Criminal facts;