The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not pay construction price to D or I as a business problem of the company management, and there was no intention to commit deception or fraud.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (7 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

According to the records, on September 28, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and two months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Eastern District Court and two years of suspended execution, and on October 11, 2017, the above judgment became final and conclusive (Seoul Eastern District Court 2016 High Court 3454).

Therefore, each of the crimes in the judgment below against the defendant shall be sentenced to punishment in consideration of equity in the case where the judgment is to be held simultaneously in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, in the relationship between the above crime of fraud for which judgment has become final and conclusive and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and since the court below rendered a sentence without considering it, the judgment of the court below is no longer

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. The Defendant alleged that there was no intention of deception and deception in the lower court as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the lower court, taking into account the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, may recognize the Defendant’s intention of deception and deception.

The decision was determined.

On the other hand, the circumstances alleged by the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, namely, the Defendant paid the above construction cost to the Defendant’s company’s expenses without obtaining understanding from the building owner D and I after receiving the construction cost from the building owner, and L, which is the owner of the construction site at the Suwon Construction Site, was the Defendant.