The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was as follows: (a) the Defendant unilaterally ceased construction work after the process of the basic structural frame for the instant housing; and (b) the construction cost was paid at least KRW 500 million by the injured party; and (c) the cost invested at the construction site was only KRW 100,150,000.

After receiving the transfer of the construction cost, the Defendant used it to repay personal debts within the framework of this day, and the construction was suspended due to the failure of the Defendant to send the construction cost after the structural construction even after the Defendant received the full payment of the construction cost.

statement is made.

In addition, even after the closure of his operation C, the Defendant did not notify the victim of the closure while receiving the construction cost.

In light of these circumstances, the Defendant, even though he did not have the intent or ability to complete the new construction of the instant house, acquired the construction cost by deceiving the victim.

Although it should be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant of the fraud crime.

2. Determination

A. On December 31, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim D who reported and contacted the Internet homepage of the building company “C” operated by the Defendant at the time of the commencement of the construction of the housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the ground of the Chang-gu, Chang-gu, Chang-gu, Chang-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant housing”). The Defendant is a consulting company specializing in the construction of the Republic of Korea date, which is managed directly by the general public by the owner of the building.

When sending the construction cost, false statement was made to the effect that “The construction cost to be responsible for and completed by the construction of new housing in this case shall be transferred.”

However, the Defendant, since around 2011, opened a building company similar to “F”, “G”, and “C” and opened a construction project and closed the construction project without completion.