The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The Defendant, who misleads the victim of the fact, will pay the cost of construction for the installation of a septic tank in cash.

There was no promise to deliver the bill to the victim, and the victim refused to receive the bill for the reason that it was not cash.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention to commit the fraud of construction cost.

B. The lower court’s punishment (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of factual mistake, i.e., the following circumstances: ① the victim, after installing a septic tank on February 28, 2013 and installing it on April 2, 2013, “the victim would pay the construction cost within five days after the completion of the construction work” from the Defendant, in writing, after the completion inspection on April 15, 2013 (Evidence No. 4,5,6 of the evidence record); ② the victim agreed to pay in cash, ② the victim stated to the effect that “if the Defendant promised to pay in cash, but the bill was delivered at the time of the completion of the construction work, rather than at the time of the completion of the construction work,” and ③ the Defendant agreed to pay in cash at the investigative agency, and the victim’s statement to the effect that “The victim refused to pay in cash was given to the victim under the name of K (E).”

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. Although it is recognized that the Defendant made efforts to pay the construction price even in the bill of exchange, and the victim does not want the Defendant’s punishment by receiving payment of the construction price later, the amount of damage does not exceed three years after the completion of the construction work.