The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that around November 2012, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract price of KRW 9,150,000 for the steel reinforced concrete construction work (hereinafter “the instant construction work”) from the victim C (hereinafter “C”) during the construction of the complex building in Echeon-si, E (hereinafter “instant construction”). C paid KRW 29,380,00 (hereinafter “the instant money”) to the J who manufactures and sells steel products under the trade name “F” as stated in the facts charged of this case, including the amount of KRW 9.15,00,00,000 for the said construction work, and thus, the Defendant was the Defendant with substantial right to dispose of the said money. In light of the fact that the Defendant borrowed the name of C around April 20, 201, the Defendant was given a subcontract for the instant construction work (hereinafter “the instant construction work”) to the new representative director with respect to the instant construction work (hereinafter “other than the instant construction work”) and that it was equivalent to KRW 4,000,00,000.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Inasmuch as C also bears the obligation to pay the other material costs of this case to J as a lessee in the name of Cdo, C paid the other material costs of this case to J as stated in the facts charged in this case.

Even if this is limited to the repayment of C's obligation, there is no loss to C.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Judgment

Whether there was a criminal intent to commit fraud against the Defendant, the lower court determined as follows: (a) part of the “a summary of evidence” among the lower judgment, such as the sales ledger related to the construction site of this case and the witness H’s legal statement.