The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the victim’s statement, related documents, settlement details, etc., the Defendant received all subcontract consideration from the injured party, and there is additional construction cost due to design modification.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, according to the transaction details of the defendant, the defendant was seriously prevented from returning the construction price immediately after receiving the subcontract price, and thus there was no intention or ability to pay the price even if he borrowed the money from the injured party.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by mistake.

B. Sentencing is unfair because the sentence (7 million won in penalty) imposed by the lower court is too unfluent to the Defendant.

‘‘(C)’’.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant lent KRW 24,00,000 to the victim’s E operation in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around January 3, 2014, from the victim’s E operation in Seocho-gu, Seoul. The Defendant borrowed the victim’s “The construction cost to be paid to the contractor’s side is insufficient.” By February 5, 2014.

It is necessary to pay immediately after receiving the cost of the J kindergarten environmental improvement project that is in progress.

Recognizing to the same purport, “A false statement was made to the effect that it was “,” and prepared for the same purpose with the same promise.

In fact, the Defendant did not have a certain asset but did not register as a credit bad and did not register the construction business, and was merely engaged in the construction business by illegally subcontracted construction works at several construction sites and was prevented from returning the construction cost, so there was no intention or ability to pay the money received from others as a loan.

Nevertheless, the defendant, however, has the victim pay 23,563,800 won to the related construction business entity around that time under the pretext of construction cost to be paid by the defendant, and KRW 1,00,000,000 from the person who has continued to suffer damage as a loan around April 4, 2014.