All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The court below acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged even though they knew that the Defendants could not complete the instant construction work with the victim at the time of entering into the instant contract, with the knowledge of the fact that the Defendants could not complete the instant construction work. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On June 30, 2010, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendants concluded a construction contract with the victim E, stating that the victim would undertake housing remodeling construction works in the G real estate located in the Seoul Southern-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating that “the cost of construction works will be executed on the face of the prime house” and concluded a construction contract with the content that the project would be completed until August 10, 2010, which would be to remodel the H commercial housing located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

However, the above construction cost was a construction work that does not have profit, and the defendant A used part of the construction cost received from the victim for other purposes because it had no property at the time and has reached approximately KRW 50,000,000,000 only for debts. The defendants had no intention or ability to complete the housing remodeling construction work even if they received the above construction cost from the victim from the beginning.

As above, the Defendants deceiving the victim and deceiving him, and Defendant A is the same from the victim.

6. 30. 30. 15,000,000 won as down payment, and the same year.

7. The first intermediate payment of KRW 15,000,000 is delivered on 19.19.3 billion, and Defendant B is liable for the same year.

8. 24. The second intermediate payment of KRW 5,000,000, and the same year;

9.9. The third intermediate payments received KRW 5,000,000.

The Defendants conspired to obtain a total of 40,000,000 won from the victim.

3. On June 30, 2010, the lower court determined that the Defendants entered into a contract with the victim to execute the instant construction work and the same year on which the date of completion of the agreement is the date of completion.

8. The completion of the construction before the lapse of 10.1, Defendant A, who led the construction of the instant case, had no particular property and had another obligation related to the construction.