The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

A defense counsel's written opinion submitted after the deadline for submitting a written reason for misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding the legal principles, shall be deemed to the extent it supplements legitimate grounds for appeal.

In fact, the Defendant was awarded a contract for interior works and appurtenant works from H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”), and had an intention or ability to subcontract to the victim.

The project does not proceed any longer because the victim did not provide a bond for the work as promised.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Defendant alleged that the lower court had the same purport as the mistake or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged in the above facts, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by providing a detailed statement on the determination.

Along with the circumstances properly explained by the court below, the defendant, after entering into a contract with H, withdrawn five copies of the check from the bank in front of 10 million won and paid it as a deposit.

The defendant asserted that he did not submit any objective data, such as the details of financial transactions, corresponding thereto, etc. (the defendant argued that the financial institution and the relevant authorities did not have sufficient time to pay for himself.)

However, the defendant withdrawn his own prior check.

When considering that the time of assertion was around September 2008, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is justifiable.

The defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is without merit.

The conditions of sentencing do not change compared to the first instance court's judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the first instance court's sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.