All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts (as to the crime of the second instance and the third instance judgment), the Defendant committed a construction work corresponding to the construction cost received to the victim E or S, and only there was a circumstance that the construction work was suspended due to an opinion submission, etc. after the commencement of the construction, and the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant even though he did not have a criminal intent to defraud the construction cost from the beginning, is erroneous

B. The Defendant appealed on the grounds that the lower court’s sentence (the first instance court: 4 months of imprisonment, the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 3 months and 2 years of probation, probation, community service, and the third instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio determination, the defendant filed each appeal against the first, second, and third original judgments, and this court decided to hold concurrent trials with respect to the appeal cases against the original judgment. Since each of the offenses against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, each of the offenses against the original judgment should be sentenced to a single punishment within the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and therefore, the original judgment

On the other hand, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts against the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined.

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant entered into a contract to use the construction cost for personal purposes even though the Defendant did not think that the construction work had been properly performed from the beginning, and that the Defendant has the intention of

A. The victim E is consistently responsible for a new construction project from an investigative agency to the court of the court below.