The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) revealed by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, namely, the following circumstances: ① the Defendant’s financial situation has deteriorated at the time of around May 2013; ② at the time of the instant construction work, the Defendant was investigated by the investigative agency as to the suspected fraud that the Defendant acquired the construction cost (a total of KRW 460 million) by fraud; ③ the Defendant was under investigation at the time of entering into several construction sites upon entering into a contract; ③ the Defendant used the construction cost at the same time; ④ the Defendant suspended the instant construction without any special reason within four days from the date of receipt of the last construction payment from the victim D (hereinafter “victim”); ⑤ the victim incurred additional disbursement of KRW 98 million to the end of the construction; ② the Defendant determined the construction cost at an unreasonable price to receive the entire construction cost from the damaged person; and, even if the construction cost was insufficient to obtain sufficient recognition of the completion of the construction work, the construction cost was paid from the person who did not obtain sufficient completion of the construction project.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, on May 13, 2013, ordered the victim to undertake construction of interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior gate, i.e., the victim of the instant facts charged, “23 million won,” under Article 201 of the Mag-si Building C in Yongsan-si, Suwon-si.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, from around 2010, the Defendant had been in bad credit standing due to delayed payment of the amount of KRW 30 million using credit cards. Since the Defendant had been doing construction work at several construction sites, and was paying the construction cost in the form of “refiscing the return of the construction cost” due to the lack of the construction cost, the Defendant was in the form of “refising the payment.”