A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for two years from the date the above judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. Although it was true that the defendant borrowed each money from the victims, if he intended to do the Ethical construction work, he could fully repay the money, so there was no intention of defraudation.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On June 15, 2009, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows; (b) at the D office of the Defendant’s management of the Suwon-si building C. 301 on May 30, 2009; (c) the fact was that the Defendant was unable to complete the construction completion inspection at the time of Seosan-si E commercial building, and the Defendant was not able to perform artificial works in the above commercial building; (d) although the Defendant did not reach KRW 100 million as a bad credit holder and did not have any other property and did not have any intent or ability to return the money even if he borrowed the money, the lower court found the Victim F guilty guilty of this part of the facts charged as follows: (a) at the time of the completion of the construction work after three months; (b) at the time of the completion of the construction work; and (c) at the end of three million won in total with the owner of the building and the total amount of the Defendant’s deposit account being 1.5 million won.”

3) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, is to be determined at the time of the crime, so long as the defendant does not make a confession, the financial history, environment, the details and contents of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction.