The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant received the instant construction project from the MM and subcontracted it to the victim, and paid part of the construction cost, and subsequently, it became impossible to pay the remainder of the construction cost to the victim as the ordering party fails to receive the construction cost due to the failure to pay the construction cost, and the Defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not intend to acquire it by deception.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of fraud. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts and legal principles were duly adopted and investigated by the lower court. ① The Defendant was awarded a contract for the construction of the commercial building and the Dogdong Building Site located in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, and subcontracted the construction of the said commercial building site to the victim around April 201, the Defendant agreed to pay the amount of intermediate payment before the commencement of the construction, and the balance when the construction is completed, ② the victim completed the construction at the end of May 201, and the Defendant paid the victim KRW 14 million in total on three occasions during the construction process of the said construction, ③ the Defendant paid the victim KRW 14 million in total to the victim during the construction process, ③ Meanwhile, even though the operator of the Dogdong Construction Co., Ltd, who had been difficult to operate, the Defendant continued to receive the remainder of construction cost from May 2, 201 to June 6, 201, and the Defendant received the remainder of construction cost from the Defendant to April 1, 2001.