The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant was given a loan to the owner of a building and was awarded a contract for construction, and the victims were not paid the money, but did not deceiving the victims.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact of deceiving the victims and deceiving the victims.

① Of the facts constituting the lower judgment, Defendant 2016 class 538 class 1 and class 2016 class 929 class order among the Defendant’s facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment demanding KRW 40 million to provide a subcontract for steel reinforced concrete construction to the owner of a neighboring facility located in Heung-gu C at Young-gu, Young-gu.

On December 2, 2010, the Defendant received 30 million won as the purchase price for the steel contract from the victim B, and paid W with 10 million won as the introduction expense from the victim P on February 2, 2011. The Defendant had no intention to use the money paid from B as the purchase price for the steel contract. Even if the Defendant was awarded the said construction contract, the Defendant already promised to subcontract the steel-reform concrete construction work to B, and thus, it was difficult for P to give the said construction contract.

(2) Of the facts constituting the lower judgment, the Defendant of the 2016 Highest No. 538 (2) of the lower judgment was performing a new construction work of I building located in Bangladesh-si.

AH’s delegation and delegation made a contract for a creative construction with the victim F. However, at the same time, the removal of the building was under way, but the construction of the building was not under way. AH also requested the Defendant to raise expenses due to the lack of funds. Therefore, the Defendant seems to be aware of the fact that the Defendant could not subcontract the creative construction to F.

(3) Of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, the Defendant, who was at the end 835, does not have sufficient means to pay the construction cost on his own.