The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (i) The pertinent construction work was conducted in the field of direct payment of personnel expenses to the registered members of Hyundai Construction, a contractor, and thus, if the victim did not receive personnel expenses, it is due to the fact that the victim did not receive safety education required for the registration of the father, and that it is irrelevant to the Defendant.

In addition, the details of the construction claimed by the victim are unfolded.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence sentenced by the court below (two years of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for April) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s (i) the statement of the victim and the statement of the work log prepared by the victim, despite the existence of sufficient credibility, shall be rejected, and the court below accepted the defendant’s defense suit by which the injured party was not paid the construction cost because the injured party did not complete the construction work and the construction was defective, and acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which was not by fraud, and thereby affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence sentenced by the court below is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Whether the lower court duly adopted and examined the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, namely, receiving the payment of construction cost directly from the contractor, is naturally for the benefit of the victim, and the completion of safety education, which is the premise thereof, is not always difficult for the victim. However, the Defendant’s assertion that the victim was unable to receive the construction cost due to his/her negligence cannot be accepted (such as a copy of the personal identification card of the victim).