The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) There is no evidence to prove that the defendant did not have any intent or ability to create a program requested by the injured party, or that there was an intention to commit deception and fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or legal principles.

2) The Defendant returned KRW 3 million out of KRW 9 million, which the Defendant received from the injured party, to the victim, and thus, the amount of damage that the Defendant received is KRW 6 million.

However, the judgment of the court below that recognized the damage amount of the crime of this case as nine million won is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Whether a mistake of facts and legal principles are erroneous or not, the Defendant alleged that this part of the appeal was the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion following the summary column of the evidence.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

2) As to the amount of damage, fraud is established in cases where a person is actively accused of another person, or a person acquires property or pecuniary benefits from another person, by impliedly deceiving matters that have a duty to inform under the good faith principle. Even if the property or pecuniary benefits already acquired have been changed ex post, it does not affect the establishment of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do2748, Feb. 25, 1986). In light of the above legal principles, the instant case is established.