The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When the Defendant received additional construction cost, etc. at the time of the instant case, the Defendant thought that the victims could be able to pay the ready-mixed price, etc., and received the ready-mixed, etc. from the victims, and the Defendant failed to pay the additional construction cost, unlike the Defendant’s thoughts, and did not intend to commit fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of probation, two years of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may be fully aware of the criminal intent of defraudation.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① On November 201, 201, the Defendant received supply and demand (Evidence No. 89 of the Evidence Records) for KRW 100 million from T (transfer of the name, etc. of the owner to R) (hereinafter “instant construction”).

The Defendant, while carrying out the instant construction, supplied the victims with all of the construction materials, such as ready-mixed, or food expenses, etc., and did not repay them to the victims on credit, around 2012, the Gu administration around the Gu administration. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) the construction period is longer longer than expected and the unit cost of the materials also increased; and (b) if the Defendant was paid the additional construction cost from the project owner, the said construction cost could have been fully repaid; (c) however, the Defendant was unable to pay the victims due to the failure to receive the additional construction cost due to the failure to receive the administrative completion even after the completion of the construction by 95%; and (d) was not a criminal intent to obtain fraud from the beginning.

② However, according to R’s statement, the owner, the Defendant, at the beginning, has more than KRW 100 million and more than KRW 112 million.