The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.

A. Defendant 1) failed to pay the price for construction to the victim by mistake of fact, but did not deceiving the victim about the ability to repay or have had the intention to acquire by deception.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. On November 20, 2013, the Defendant entered into a construction contract for the construction of G factories in the land located in Kimhae-si in the instant case with KRW 357.5 million for E and the construction cost, while operating “D” for construction works, etc. around November 20, 2013.

Accordingly, the Defendant called the victim H to the new site of G factory after completing the basic construction work on December 2, 2013, and called the victim H to the end of the construction work. The Defendant would pay the construction cost immediately after the completion of the construction work and, if the construction cost is not paid, transfer the construction cost claim to G.

“ .......”

However, in fact, the defendant had already been liable to pay the construction price to the victim because he had already been liable for the debt equivalent to KRW 200 million, and even if he was paid the construction price from the above E, he did not have the ability to pay the construction price to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as such; (b) had the victim implement the said panel construction from December 23, 2013 to April 3, 2014; and (c) did not pay KRW 94 million to the victim; and (d) obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount.

B. Based on the evidence in its holding, the court below held that the defendant deceivings the victim and caused the victim to implement the above panel construction work.