The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (the part of the lower judgment’s judgment’s crime No. 2 fraud) actually ordered the victim to subcontract the retaining wall construction with a new building located in a tent to the victim, and even though the construction was suspended, it fully repaid 4,350,000 won borrowed from the damaged party as a result of settlement of accounts, there was no intention or deception

Therefore, the lower court convicted of this part of the facts charged, contrary to this, erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, namely, ① the victim stated in the investigative agency and the court of the lower court that “on May 8, 2014, the Defendant borrowed money from the victim with respect to the construction of the retaining wall (hereinafter “the instant construction”) on May 8, 2014, with the victim’s belief that “on May 8, 2009, the Defendant would have repaid all of the borrowed money to the victim,” and the Defendant would have lent KRW 4,350,000 to the Defendant five times in total, but the instant construction was suspended and the said money was not returned,” and the victim stated in detail that “on December 10, 2009, the Defendant would have not repaid KRW 6,500,000 (the criminal facts of the lower judgment) that the Defendant borrowed KRW 4,500,000,000 to KRW 5,500,000,000,000.

However, in full view of the fact that there is no basis to acknowledge that the construction cost according to the fixed rate is equivalent to KRW 15,180,000,000, it is sufficient to acknowledge the guilty of this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified, and therefore, defendant-person.