All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) was unable to comply with the completion date of the contract due to land boundary disputes, objective construction period, length and harsh weather conditions, and the victim was understood.

It was difficult to carry out the construction work because the construction cost was set excessively low and there was no timely payment.

More than KRW 350 million has been invested for construction costs, and a significant portion of the construction has been completed.

The defendant could not complete the construction work on the wind bound by the law due to a sudden drinking driving, and there was the intention and ability to complete the construction contract at the time of concluding the construction contract and receiving the price.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts alleged that the defendant had no intention to commit fraud and deception, and the court below stated detailed circumstances that the defendant had no intention and ability to complete the construction of this case within the contract period at the time of receiving money from the damaged party as the construction cost.

The decision was determined.

When considering the following facts together with the circumstances presented by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of mistake in the facts alleged by the defendant.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

The construction cost and construction period of the contract are set on the basis of the estimate set by the defendant.

Land boundary dispute is not mentioned in the investigation agency and the court below, and M's statement in charge of the structural construction is about 20 days of measurement, so it is highly different from 60 days of the defendant's assertion.

M is the opinion that the appropriate period of construction is 80 days, and is similar to the period of construction contracted by the defendant, and there is no particular reason that the defendant could delay the construction in particular.

Defendant.