A. Recognizing that the Defendant was partly delinquent in paying the additional tax, and that there was no ability to pay a considerable amount of money from March 2012 due to the failure of the original company from around March 2012.

The judgment of the court below which recognized that the defendant had the intention to acquire by deception based on the defendant's statement at the prosecutor's office was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the Defendant confessions, and the intent of the crime is sufficient, not a conclusive intention, but a willful negligence.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the defendant, at the time of entering into the instant construction contract with the victims, did not notify the victims of the fact that the defendant was not paid the additional tax, or the fact that the defendant was unable to pay the additional tax due to the fact that the defendant did not receive the additional tax from the ordering authority and did not notify the victims of the fact that there was a delay in payment due to the delay in payment of the additional tax. The defendant himself did not have any explicit consent or permission from the victims. The defendant agreed with the victims of this case at the lower court, but the defendant had already failed to pay the additional tax before the agreement, etc., comprehensively taking into account the above legal principles, such as the fact that the defendant had agreed with the victims of this case.