Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendants is erroneous by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In the trial of the court below, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment to the effect that “K and L had K and L make the Defendants make a false statement about the Defendants’ poor financial standing.” However, the amendment of the facts charged is merely an indirect method that embodys the method of deception into “in an indirect manner through a third party” and it is difficult to view that the content of deception is substantially changed or that the subject of the trial is changed by affecting the Defendants’ exercise of their right to defense, thereby making it difficult to reverse the judgment of the first instance court ex officio.

B. In full view of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, the first instance court’s judgment was sufficiently proven to the extent that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants conspired to commit the instant crime in advance with K or L, and ② the victims are believed to believe the financial resources of LH Corporation, which is the place of the order of the instant construction project, and the large-scale construction corporation, which is the prime contractor, and to have provided various services, including lighting and turd, at the instant construction site. In light of the fact that the Defendants deceptiond the victims as stated in the facts charged, the Defendants were sufficiently proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.