The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the defendant's appeal is that the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment although the defendant did not have the intention of defraudation.

However, in light of the consistent and consistent statement of G on the process during which the payment of the construction cost was made to the defendant at the time of the instant case, entry of the standard contract for private construction work in support thereof, and the fact that the defendant did not conclude a contract for the construction work of each of the instant detached houses between G and K (hereinafter “victim”) at the time of the instant case, even if the defendant received the payment of the construction cost from G and K at the time of the instant case, it can be recognized that the defendant, even if he did not have the ability to complete the construction work of each of the instant detached houses and to allow the victims to move into and use, and even if he did not have the ability to have the victims move into and use it, he could be found to have received 30 million won each from the victims as stated in the facts of the lower judgment with knowledge of such circumstance.

Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.