However, the court below is difficult to recognize the criminal intent of deceiving the accused.

Since the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case, it erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On October 201, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant called the victim D'E's 'E' sales of the victim D' constructed in Seosung-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, by phoneing the victim to the 'E' sales of the 'E' constructed a new multi-household house in Daejeon-gu, Seoul. However, the Defendant’s employees G (the former name before the opening name: H) supplied human materials on credit and repaid the material price after completion of the construction.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the Defendant had been in a situation where it was economically difficult for the Defendant to receive any balance while running construction work in several places other than the above Newly constructed new multi-household house, and even if he received materials from the injured party, he had a plan to postpone the payment of the material price to the above G, and there was no intention or ability for the victim to pay in full.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received materials equivalent to KRW 2,238,500 in total from the damaged party, including the market price around October 7, 201, and received materials equivalent to KRW 2,238,500 from the damaged party, and acquired them by deceptioning them by means of a total of 13 times from November 29, 201, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table from November 29, 201.

B. The lower court determined that: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., that G was actually awarded a contract for the entire new construction of a multi-household house in this case; and (b) there was no objective document verifying that such contract was terminated.