The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The defendant is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not acquire money or pecuniary profit by deceiving the victim.

2) The lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is hot.

B. According to the confession of the defendant who misleads the defendant as to the facts, the fact that the defendant forged a private document and used the above investigation document is sufficiently recognized.

2) The lower court’s punishment that is unfair in sentencing is light.

2. Determination

A. 1) Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts was made by the prosecutor of the Amendments to Bill of Indictment that deleted 3 and 5 times the list of crimes in the judgment of the court below among the facts charged against the Defendant, and the subject of the trial was changed since this court received the request.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is examined within the scope of the facts charged.

2) Around June 2012, the Defendant found in the Victim F Office of the Victim F, Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Etel 501, and had been working for the case of public works (the prime contractor) in relation to the case of installing the tunnels of the Gridong-do, Gangwon-do.

In 2012, the end will be completed at the end of the speech.

The total amount of construction cost is 3.2 billion won, which is equivalent to 10% of the construction cost from the late July 2012, 320 million won from the Liart's side at the end of the end of the day of July 2012.

The design work for the Liart's proposal will be assigned to the Do and it will be changed. If the office rent, employee's wages, and the cost of house construction for the production work are paid first, it will be paid later.

“To the effect that it was “...........”

However, at the time, the defendant was qualified as the contractor of the construction proposal for the construction work of the above Ri tunnel, or was not selected as the prime contractor, and there was no intention or ability to pay the cost or price to be incurred in the design work.

As above, Defendant 1 made a false statement to the victim and had the victim do the design work. From August 17, 2012, Defendant 1 had the victim do so.