The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had transacted with the victim for a long time, and was supplied with regard to other construction work before the instant construction work, and the amount paid as construction cost of another construction work out of the amount received as construction cost of the instant construction work is merely a part of the amount paid.

In addition, the construction work of this case was not completed normally due to the injury cut off during the construction work, and due to this, the victim was not paid the price of ready-mixed with the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since the defendant has sufficient intent or ability to pay the ready-mixed price at the time when he was supplied with

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts also asserted the same grounds for appeal, and the court below acknowledged the following circumstances: (a) according to the records of this case, although the defendant had engaged in three-party housing construction works at the same place prior to the execution of the construction work in its ruling, all of the construction works are deemed to have been conducted without preparing specific methods for procuring construction costs in addition to the construction cost paid by the owner; (b) even according to the defendant's statement, the construction cost was partially appropriated for the construction cost that was not paid from other three-party housing construction works that had already been conducted after receiving the construction cost from the owner of the building in its ruling; and (c) at the time of the housing construction work in its ruling, the defendant appears to have been prevented from returning the construction cost; and (d) it appears that the defendant had no specific property at the