The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of Defendant’s appeal: misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In the case of exercise of rights by means of deception as to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, if the act belonging to the exercise of rights and the act of deception belonging to such means are comprehensively observed, and such deception cannot be acceptable as a means of exercise of rights under social norms, the act of exercise of rights constitutes fraud.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6410 Decided June 13, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15454 Decided November 24, 201, etc.). Even if the Defendant has the right to claim payment of subcontract price or labor cost against the victim company, the Defendant prepared and submitted to the victim company documents evidencing that he/she provided labor, such as a false statement of payment of daily labor cost, work cost record, work attendance record, etc., as if he/she provided normal labor by lending the name of the person who does not actually work as a human father at each construction site of the instant case, and submitted them to the victim company, and received total labor cost of KRW 92,226,042 from the victim company. The Defendant’s act as a whole goes beyond the permissible scope as a means of exercising the right by social norms, and constitutes deception.

[A person who has a right under the private law, even if there is a dispute over the amount, time, method of settlement, etc. of construction cost or labor cost, etc. with the other party, and in such a case, it shall be resolved through legitimate procedures, such as a conciliation lawsuit, and if it is not received through deception, it shall not be easy to permit that it would result in the other party's deprivation of opportunity to dispute as to the existence of performance obligation, its scope, timing, etc., and it may not result in the destruction of the order of procedural law). Furthermore, the background of the instant crime, the period and frequency of the instant crime.