A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding of the legal principles, was almost all the progress of the supply contract with J, and when only the insufficient design cost, authorization cost, and permission cost, the Defendant obtained permission and received a total of KRW 150 million from the injured party as if he could promptly collect earth and stones and make profits therefrom, and used them entirely for purposes unrelated to the instant case.

However, the court below held that the defendant had the intention to acquire by deception.

It is difficult to conclude it.

In light of the above, since the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the criminal intent of deception or deception, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is the person who actually operates E.

around December 2014, the Defendant, the president of (State) F, and H, the head of the instant company’s business entity, are running a business of supplying earth and sand (2.5 millions) at the I site located in Seosan, and even with J, the Defendant is also in a fluent relationship with the J, and two of six earth and sand gatherings are currently receiving authorization and permission.

The remaining four military teams are currently in progress with authorization and permission, and if insufficient design expenses, authorization and permission expenses are prepared, supply may commence immediately from the beginning of January 2015 after obtaining permission.

The project will be jointly carried out after the introduction of the payment of KRW 150 million and the profit of the project will be distributed at the rate of 50:50.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not enter into a supply contract with the J and did not proceed with the negotiations on the conclusion of the contract. In some cases, the collection of earth and stones did not have been able to proceed with the authorization and permission due to the display of the agreement with the prop, and the collection of earth and stones that completed the authorization and permission is also subject to the Defendant’s direct authorization and permission.