All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

Defendant

A The victim of the attached list No. 1 of the judgment of the court below in the mistake of facts did not pay advance payment, thereby falsely cutting 8 million won tax invoice as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and then returning the above amount and claiming it to the victim as equipment cost. However, the victim did not have the intent to commit fraud, since it was based on the personnel cost required by the victim.

The remainder Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 8 other than the annexed table Nos. 1 in the judgment of the court below is related to the cost of equipment. Since the equipment at the construction site of this case was overall control of Defendant B and the Defendant was not involved, there was no conspiracy with Defendant B.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of suspended sentence in April) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with respect to Defendant A, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, although it is sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the fraud as of July 25, 2012, and as of the No. 3, 5, and 7 of the annexed crime list in the judgment of the court below.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

Defendant

As to B, the sentence of the court below (one year of suspended sentence in April) is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

Defendant

The following circumstances revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court below regarding the argument of mistake of facts as to A, i.e., (i) if a false tax invoice is issued as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below and the amount is paid by the victim, the deception can be sufficiently recognized and the rationalization cannot be made on the ground that it is a practice. (ii) The defendant alleged that he used the above eight million won as site expenses at an investigative agency, but the court paid it to the victim as personnel