We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. Fact-misunderstanding ① The Defendant did not have been involved in the new construction of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “the instant apartment building”) that X, a representative director of another company of C Co., Ltd. received orders from the Defendant. However, due to the absence of X at the time, the Defendant ratified a subcontract for the construction of H construction with respect to the US, waterproof and Waterproof Construction among the said new construction works on behalf of the Defendant, and on behalf of the Defendant, did not demand the victim G to pay money as the deposit money for the construction contract. ② The new construction of the instant apartment was temporarily suspended due to the lack of construction cost, and the F Co., Ltd. was awarded a blanket subcontract for the instant new apartment construction, and thus, he did not have any intent

subsection (b) of this section.

As such, even though the defendant did not deceiving the victim G to obtain 20,000,000 won as the deposit money for construction contract by deceiving the victim G, the judgment of the first instance which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (the penalty amounting to 5,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant committed deception against the victim G with intent to commit fraud as stated in the facts charged.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is justified.

A. The facts charged in the instant case do not mean that the Defendant acquired money from the injured party in collusion with J, etc., but the Defendant said that “The Defendant would give the victim a re-subcontract the construction work, such as the failure and waterproof of the construction site of the instant apartment construction site.” As such, the Defendant paid KRW 20,000,000 as the construction contract deposit.”

The victim G is consistent from investigative agencies to the court of first instance.