2. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the grounds for appeal, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that the defendant obtained cash and card use amount of KRW 15,739,520 from the victim even though he did not have the intent or ability to receive electrical construction even if he received business funds from the victim E, as stated in the facts charged. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

On July 2012, 2012, the Defendant came to know of the victim who was operating an electrical construction company upon introduction. On August 13, 2012, the Defendant issued an electrical construction order to replace the pre-existing lighting with PED’s name as part of the energy saving project, and borrowed the pre-existing lighting money, including the business fund, to the victim. As stated in the facts charged, the Defendant received a total of KRW 15,739,520 from the victim until January 26, 2013.

B. However, even if Defendant’s witness K and L’s statement was made at the court room, Defendant’s side can only be recognized as proposing an electrical construction that replaces the former former lighting with LED’s name on July 20, 2012 in Yongsan-gu Seoul, and on July 31, 2012 in the International Electronic Center, the international electronic document center did not submit any evidence to acknowledge that the former lighting had been ordered to do electrical construction before and after the instant case.

Defendant

The reason why the pre-existing lighting is not ordered to be replaced by the pre-existing lighting is that it was difficult for the defendant to find consumers to bear the initial expenses because the pre-existing lighting price is needed at an early stage, and it seems that the defendant was well aware.

C. The Defendant’s electrical construction at the time of receiving business funds from the victim.