All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The Defendants, in fact, did not have any intent and ability to pay the construction cost at the time of the instant case, on the ground that the Defendants started the instant construction work with a vague plan to obtain loans from financial rights and procure them, and the major causes of the discontinuance of the instant construction work were the Defendants’ efforts to construct the instant construction work in accordance with the existing design.

However, it is difficult for the court below to recognize the criminal intent of deception or deception of the Defendants.

Since the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case, it erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendants tried to newly construct a multi-household D site (hereinafter “instant land”) in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, under which Defendant A entered into an agreement to acquire, but the Defendants received a loan of financial rights and pay the construction cost to the subordinate company by receiving a loan of financial rights based on the cryp, the lack of construction cost. Defendant B, while supervising the construction of the said new construction loan, intended to put the funds received from another construction site into the said new construction loan until receiving a loan of financial rights.

Accordingly, at the container office located at the construction site of the above site multi-household on February 2015, Defendant B, who was awarded a lump sum subcontract by Defendant A from the actual owner of the above loan site, was awarded a subcontract by Defendant B through E to the victim F. The following purport is that “if the Defendants build concrete on 3rd floor, they will offer to the victim F a primary 40 million won, within 3 days, with the fact that the Defendants would sell concrete.” Around March 11, 2015, he/she became the guarantor of a building subcontract contract prepared between E and the victim.

However, the facts are as follows: Defendant A, on January 29, 2015, shall include Defendant A’s acquisition of loan obligations in the amount of KRW 270 million (including KRW 190 million and KRW 190 million, and January 2015.