The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, who retired from the D Company at the time of receiving the aggregate of this case and was individually performing construction work, and acting as if he had been performing construction work as the site warden belonging to D Company, deceiving the victim about his ability to pay the material cost.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around April 16, 2015, pretended that the victim C would normally pay aggregate by posting a telephone to the victim C, and the victim “(B) is A of the D Company, and in the ethic City E to the waterway, aggregate needs to be dispatched.

G. “F.D.” makes a false statement.

However, at the time, the Defendant was not a person belonging to the D Company, and the above construction site was a construction work without any relation with the D Company. The Defendant was already leaving the D Company around 2014 and was working in a personal location. The Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the amount normally even if he was supplied with aggregate from around 2012 to the damaged party due to the lack of circumstances such as temporary payment of the wages of the workers employed at the construction site.

As above, the Defendant: (a) induced the victim and received aggregate amounting to KRW 374,00 from the victim of the damage at the construction site above; (b) received aggregate amounting to KRW 374,00 from around that time to June 10, 2015, aggregate amounting to KRW 4,564,50 in total market value over 10 times in the same way; and (c) received aggregate supply from around that time.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant expressed on the part of the victim as if he worked in D Company, and the victim thought that the Defendant had been working in D Company that had been engaged in the previous transactions, and appears to have supplied aggregate. However, considering the amount of the unpaid payment or the developments leading to the unpaid payment, the Defendant deceiving the victim even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay aggregate.