The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The judgment below

Of them, compensation order.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had an intention or ability to pay construction cost to the victim U.S. Co., Ltd. (Article 1 of the judgment below).

Among the construction cost, the value-added tax shall not be paid between the business operators, but it shall be deducted from the property profit because it is not the actual profit. Moreover, since the damaged person fails to complete the construction, it cannot calculate the property profit acquired by the defendant, it cannot be said that the property profit acquired by the defendant exceeds 500 million won.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Fraud) that he/she acquired pecuniary benefits exceeding KRW 500 million by allowing the victim to work for the reason that the defendant has no intent or ability to pay the construction cost, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the criminal intent of defraudation in fraud and pecuniary interests.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Prior to the judgment on the ground of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the ground of appeal by authority, and the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with respect to the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) as stated in the judgment of the court below as follows. The subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission. This part and the remaining conviction were concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, so long as one sentence is sentenced, the entire judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there are such reasons for reversal of authority.

B. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion 1) Summary of the revised facts charged.