The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for fraud against the victim M in the first instance judgment.

A. Defendant 1) In relation to fraud against the victim E (hereinafter “Defendant 1”), the Defendant did not know the situation in which H was unable to pay KRW 5 billion to the partnership’s side and did not obtain the status as an agent and contractor, and was aware that H was able to exercise the right of execution as a matter of course. Therefore, there was no intention of deception on the ground that he knew that H was able to exercise the right of execution.

Although lending KRW 75 million on November 11, 2009, there was an intention and ability to receive and repay the money borrowed from Q to Q.

In addition, on December 18, 2009, the part of KRW 100,000,000, which was received from the injured party, was paid as compensation to transfer the remaining 10,000,000 won to the injured party. In this case, the above 75,00,000 won was converted to the transfer price, and the injured party was able to hear explanations from Q and make investment

B) The crime of fraud against the victim AR (as indicated in the judgment of the second instance, 2016 order 3261) the Defendant was paid the construction cost from the owner even before the completion of construction by means of welfare fund, real estate security loan, etc., after completion, the Defendant agreed to receive the construction cost as security after completion. Since the construction mutual aid association has sufficient financial resources, such as investment securities, etc., the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the subcontract price to the victim.

In addition, since the defendant did not receive the price from the owner and rather suffered a considerable property loss, he acquired the pecuniary profit as stated in the judgment of the court below.

shall not be deemed to exist.

C) As to the crime of fraud against the victim BK (as indicated in the judgment of the second instance, 2016 order 3261 of the judgment below), the amount of money actually executed by the victim is limited to KRW 96.3 million and the amount of construction cost unilaterally calculated by the victim is not trustable.

In case of deduction of damages caused by defective construction of the victim, most of the damages were paid, and even if so, the cost of construction is recognized as claimed by the victim.