Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The project for misunderstanding of facts is a project that has the possibility of success and is currently being promoted.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving E, etc. as stated in the facts charged, and did not intend to acquire it by fraud.

E actually did not provide labor for the defendant, and the wage contract was a condition that the success would be the subsequent payment.

B. When considering the various circumstances of unreasonable sentencing, the sentence of the lower court (fine 7,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before examining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the judgment of the court below was pronounced, and the Defendant appealed on May 23, 2014 at the Seoul Eastern District Court sentenced two years to imprisonment for fraud, etc., but the Seoul High Court dismissed the appeal from October 24, 2014. However, although the appeal was lodged by the Supreme Court on January 29, 2015, the judgment became final and conclusive after dismissal of the appeal was dismissed on January 29, 2015. Thus, each crime of the judgment of the court below and fraud for which the above sentence became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment for each crime of the judgment of the court below in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment was rendered simultaneously under the latter part

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of facts in the judgment below.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake, witness E and the court of the trial, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case, since the defendant did not have the ability to carry out the Congo project or the Klato modernization, or at least did not intend to pay wages to E or to allow E andJ to carry out the above project.