misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles have the ability to repay the construction cost at the time of concluding the construction contract with the victim, and the part of paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below is not paid the construction cost because the victim has not completed the construction work, and there has been no deception by the defendant.

In relation to Paragraph 2 of the decision of the court below, it cannot be recognized as being obtained through a written estimate by the victim.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The court below rejected the above assertion by the defendant on the assertion that there was no intention of deception or deception of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, on the ground that the defendant had the same argument as the grounds for appeal of this case.

The lower court and the lower court alleged that the Defendant could not pay the construction cost due to the economic aggravation due to G’s breach of trust, etc. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23720, Mar. 14, 2013> (1) the following circumstances, i.e.,: (a) the Defendant was convicted of having committed a criminal act that did not pay the construction cost to other victims on or around March 201, 201; and (b) the Defendant received a final judgment (Seoul Northern Northern District Court Decision 2012Da2913; Presidential Decree No. 2391, Dec. 2391, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 201755, Feb. 14, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 23588, Aug. 14, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 23582, Mar. 15, 2011>