The Defendants merely performed a separate construction work according to the direction of the EM Technology Co., Ltd. which subcontracted the instant construction work to E and the construction contractor which is the main contractor of the instant construction work, and thus, it does not constitute fraud against the Defendants.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendants could recognize the fact of deceiving the Defendants as stated in the instant facts charged by deceiving them.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

① It is recognized that the Defendants were ordered by TM technology Co., Ltd and TIM Construction Co., Ltd to perform a separate construction work other than the details of the instant construction work.

However, it does not seem that there was an urgent circumstance to the extent that it would not be possible to inform the victim E company of the fact that it received separate orders from EM technology and construction companies, and even after the completion of construction, it did not notify the victim company of the fact that the aforementioned separate construction was done, and did not notify the victim company of the fact that it was possible to claim the construction cost, and filed a claim for the payment for the instant construction cost with the victim company.

② If the Defendants knew the victim company in advance or later, the victim company did not agree with ESM technology Co., Ltd. and construction companies in advance, and therefore, the victim company did not agree with the Defendants on the cost of construction and its payment. Therefore, considering the risks under the following (3), it is deemed that the Defendants agreed on the cost of construction and requested the Defendants to pay the cost of construction.