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

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. The Defendant, by notifying the victim of the fact that the amount of additional value-added tax exceeds KRW 70,000,000, the Defendant would order the construction works ordered by SH and would pay the victim the subcontract price when receiving the order for the construction works.

Since the defendant made an effort for acceptance of a contract later, it cannot be said that the defendant made an implied or passive deception of the victim.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) although the Defendant was not financially able to pay the subcontract price to the victim when the Defendant was unable to pay the amount of KRW KRW 00 million due to the failure to pay the value-added tax; (b) on the premise that the Defendant was able to pay the subcontract price without notifying the victim thereof; and (c) it constitutes implied and passive deception in relation to the victim.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is justified and there is an error of law by mistake of facts in the judgment below.

subsection (b) of this section.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. The Defendant has a record of having been sentenced to criminal punishment for the same offense.

However, when the defendant was in the first instance, the victim was unable to punish the victim by mutual consent with the victim, and the degree of deception against the victim is relatively weak.

In light of the fact that the court below's sentence is too unreasonable, considering all the conditions of sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the background and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances thereafter, etc., the defendant's above assertion has merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal of this case is justified.