However, even if the Defendant received the above money from the injured party, it was thought that it would be paid as the price for the materials related to the previous construction, and there was no intention or ability to execute the construction by receiving the above materials related to the interior construction, unlike the bad credit standing.

Ultimately, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim, and then deceiving the victim from the victim on October 13, 2016, KRW 7 million, and KRW 6 million on October 18, 2016, by receiving a total of KRW 13 million from the victim, and by receiving KRW 6 million around October 18, 2016.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant appears to have been in a bad credit position at the time of the instant interior works. However, the evidence alone submitted by the Prosecutor was insufficient to have proven the facts charged in the instant case to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① From May 2016, the Defendant: (a) contracted five points of “G” and “F” to complete the construction work; and (b) completed the construction work.

② On October 16, 2016, upon receipt of a contract from H, the victim E’s spouse, for interior works, KRW 2,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the first intermediate payment of the cost of removing services, around October 13, 2013, the Defendant received the transfer of KRW 7,000,000,00 from the account under the name of the order for installation of materials around October 13, 2013, and completed half of the removal works until October 18, 2016, the Defendant was preparing for the implementation of the removal works by paying KRW 70,00,000 for waste disposal expenses to I and KRW 3,00,00,00 for human resources, such as joint plates, and purchasing KRW 158,00,00 for human resources, etc.

(3) The defendant on October 19, 2016.