The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the Defendant was involved in the instant material lease agreement as the owner of the building can be acknowledged, and the fact that the Defendant acquired the said materials by fraud to the effect that the victim C would not have any intent or ability to pay the materials price.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Ex officio determination of ex officio, the prosecutor examined the facts charged in the instant case for the first time in the trial, and the third day below.

As stated in Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, the applicable provisions of the applicable provisions of the Act were amended to “Article 347(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act,” and the court applied for amendments to a bill of amendment of the Act, and the subject of the adjudication was changed by this court’s permission, so the judgment of the court below no longer maintained

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the revised facts charged is that the Defendant, as the owner of the project for the construction of a new pentle in Incheon po-gun D, the owner of the project for the construction of a new pentle-gun, Incheon po-gun, the Defendant was required to “to lease materials only under the owner’s joint and several sureties” while entering into a construction contract with F and E through G, but the said F et al. entered into a construction material lease contract with the victim C in relation to the said new construction project (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) around June 17, 2011.

Around that time, the Defendant issued as security a statement of the number of units per unit of 15 million won per face value under the name of K company, i.e., the owner of the building, who leased materials to the above site through the above G through the above G at a non-place located in Incheon Metropolitan City.

However, the defendant has paid money to the victim.